[jimbob]

I understand how evolution works, and how a lot of things fit in to it. I don't know about every single little detail, but that doesn't matter. That is what biologists are for.

Errr... not to speak for all biologists or anything, but has anyone been reading my Posts? To reiterate in brief, the complexity issue doesn't favor chance.

I don't know every little detail about gravity, and yet I can be safe in assuming that it works. The same applies to evolution.

Yeah, except the terms "observational gravity" and "theory of gravity" can be linked, whereas "theory of evolution" is not linked to any term "observational evolution".
We can let go of a small object and see it 'drop' towards the large object everyday, and we call the phenomenon gravity - no doubt about our observation (unless you're a deconstructionist )
However, the observed phenomenon for evolution is speciation.
That is to say, we see species everyday. But evolution is a theory attempting to explain where those species came from. Thus we never see evolution. To claim that we see species proves evolution is circular reasoning at its roundest!

This is because both theories are based upon logical reasoning, and are backed up by experimentation (hence, they are theories, and not hypothesises).

I'm still wondering which of the experiments; the primordial soup in an electrified mason jar, or the punctuated equilibrium/salted fossil record is the successful experimentation everyone keeps mentioning.

nighty-night
jimbob