In 1574 you explained how an evolutionist would claim to "prove" gravity. In 1619 you lamented the fact that new versions of a theory arise to explain new observations, but again talked about this "proving" business. That new observations fit so easily within the existing framework does not prove the theory of evolution. An expected observation will never prove a theory. Because all it takes is one out of place fossil (a pre-Cambrian vertebrate, for example) to disprove the theory of evolution. Yet you appear to be complaining that theories are changed to fit the evidence.
do you believe that evolution has been proven? If not, why is it taught as fact?
Some species of organisms exist today that did not exist in the past. Some species of organisms that existed in the past do not exist today. Humans have witnessed the evolution of a single species, and in a few cases have been lucky enough to observe the formation of brand-new species. The phenomenon of evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution does an excellent job of explaining how this happened.
In the same way, the phenomenon of gravity is a fact. Rocks fall. Planets orbit suns. Moons orbit planets. Tides flow and recede. The theory of gravity attempts to explain, with reasonable success, how it works.
Well, in fact, I very clearly have defined the role of experiments in 1574 which is in agreement with what you say above that I do not agree with. Please quote from me to the contrary.
Experimentation is only one way to test the predictions of a theory. Variables can be more carefully controlled and isolated in a lab, but this in no way detracts from the value of field observations, expecially in cases where the phenomena described by the theory do not lend themselves to laboratory conditions. Even so, your above statement is wrong. For example there was a recent thread on a 20-year experiment to domesticate a small Russian Silver Fox population, with fascinating results. I can dig up a link if you want it.