Audio,

Thanks for the link, I will check it out when I can give it the proper amount of time.

I do not think I have misused the term 'theory' at all.

There are many varied theories about quantum physics, string theory, even the Holy Grail - the Theory Of Everything (TOE), which unites all known forces into a single equation.

Evolution is considered a theory because it has yet to explain the method used to get from point a to point b in a repeatable demonstration. For this reason, I doubt that it will ever pass muster to become scientific law but so far it goes like this:

You have a group of apes, then something happens to alter their genes and they become humans. It took a long time.

I believe that is what I said. Except that I would say that a capable offspring is one that has less of a chance of becoming a meal - in the context of your example.

I was rather jocular with my earthworm comment. You are correct that it does take time. However, apes and humans do not share the same number of chromosomes (apes have 48 - we have 46) so I am at a loss to explain the method that caused the change. The evolution argument would be much stronger if they could make that connection.

If monkeys and man are so very similiar, why are pig heart valves used for transplant instead of monkey heart valves?

You are also correct in that this is a very complex field of study. Natural Selection is Darwin's theory as to the origin of Species but it lacks proper depth to be the theory of the origin of man. Much as Bohr's model of the atom is good enough for High School chemistry but lacks the proper complexity for College Physics.

I am very sorry Nick. As much as I respect your opinions, a source of MSNBC isn't going to cut it with me. Not that I matter at all - and I won't speak for anyone else but for me......... no.

Nice to have an intelligent exchange as opposed to the other new thread.