Strictly speaking, Michael, a theory sets out to be as comprehensive an explanation as possible of a given phenomenon. Whilst there is no doubt that evolution (as a natural phenomenon, which exists in spite of science) is true, I admit that it's a bit harder to say that the theory is true. Many aspects of the evidence supporting the theory are incontrovertible. In fact, evidence itself can comprise natural phenomena: this fossil of the femur of Eohippus exists. It is a natural phenomenon. It existed way before science ever did. You can't argue with its existence (and you can't argue with its age either, within limits, as the science of radio-isotope dating is pretty solid). Much of the evidence supporting evolution consists of incontrovertible phenomena. Whether it all adds up to a theory (an explanation, remember) that is true is a moot point. A theory can be tweaked or added to, and some of its tenets may one day be trashed. My point, totally lost on Snail, is that you're a fool if you argue against the truth of evolution. In order to do that you have to reject a vast amount of good, honest evidence. Worse, in putting forward your "alternative", you have to ignore good evidence and interpose utterly unsupportable notions of your own. It's just like belief in God. You have to deny reality and subscribe to utterly evidence-free concepts.