Full marks lighter, for your exercise in one upman ship!   The difference is that the comparison is seriously flawed due to the massive difference in alleged time past between origins and the Tudors. There is also a vast difference in the quality and detail of the evidence between them. You could , I suppose, question the evidence for the Tudors, but the differences I outlined above make such scenario much mor unlikely.   your arguments mostly consist of appeal to authority and numbers of scientists that agree with you.         Ed, I am certain that Danny Faulkner does not follow evolutionism. His science agrees with, or more accurately is more consistent with the bible. As I say, worldview guides and directs interpretation of data.          You can of course , take refuge in my lesser learning, but I have offered evidences against evolutionism in accord with simple science that have not been answered, beyond assurances that there are answers or are waiting in faith for them.          Darwin certainly knew he did not have an unshakable theory, and you have not demonstrated that genetics, nor any other branch of science has improved that. In fact ,with so much complexity revealed increasingly since the simple cell idea, I reckon there is even less proof.                   The increasing censure of views other than Darwinist in education is hardly scientific, when science is supposed to question rather than demand unquestioning acceptance.