Well now, Gastropodus adagioissimus, the point is this. Science is the art of dissing something until evidence can be presented that the "something" is worthy of un-dissing. That's how science, in order to be good science, has to operate. The un-dissing process is usually long and gradual as evidence accumulates. But there has to come a time when so much evidence has accumulated that one can say, with the utmost confidence, that the dissers are no longer credible. That the amount of evidence has reached a tipping point. That the notion, once upon a time dissed, can no longer be credibly dissed. That point was reached with the theory of evolution by natural selection a long time ago. It is no longer possible, with any credibility at all, for anyone to challenge the general thrust of the theory. I'm not saying that details can't be tweaked and that arguments within can't still rage, not a bit of it. But the thrust of evolution theory can no longer be credibly denied. So I have a bit more courage than you, apparently. I say that the theory, in its general thrust, is true. Now if you think that the theory, in its general thrust (not in every intimate detail, mind) is not true, then give us your evidence to that effect. Of course, you may wish to go all philosophical on me, abandon earth-boundness and debate the meaning of the word "truth". Well good for you. But I kind of like the word "truth" and I like to be able to employ it without some bloody pedant breathing down my neck implying that it's a word that can never be used in science. It can be, and I have done. And I'm still a scientist.