I am under no onus to offer thick people a bit of slack to try and compromise the things I believe (facts) with quack ideas. If something is true there is no requirement to modify it, least of all if it's a well-rounded scientific framework. The problem with Kedge/Win8.1 is that he has a long reputation for trashing and derailing threads on a miriad of topics. He is by far the worst troll on this forum, and his relentless dross outweighs any minor insult you might find on these last few pages. There is no balance needed, the conversation is already balanced. Claiming that the young earth creatards need to have an equal say is invalid, you can't just rock up to the table with any wild opinion and demand that it has equal validity to something well established, least of all if you bring no evidence to support your wild hypothesis. That's not necessarily the case with regards to evolution at all. There are minor differences of agreement within the world of evolution sciences with regards to population movements, rates of change in specific populations, haploid frequencies etc etc, but make no mistake, the fundamentals are absolutely agreed upon. What we have here is akin to a 'moon made of cheese' contingent from the creationist side. If someone came to you and argued passionately but without evidence that the moon was made of cheese, would you treat their 'opinion' with equal validity or would you be frank with them? As others have mentioned, there are no gaps within evolutionary theory because it is basically a yes/no answer with regards to genetic mutations. The only gaps are in the physical fossil record, for obvious reasons, because one would not rationally expect every fossil of everything that ever lived to be pooled together in one convenient place, ready for instant discovery. The gaps are in finding pieces of certain creatures in the earth, the theory itself is basically sound. To introduce an element of doubt again suggests that there are gaping holes in the theory, or suggests that another competing theory has equally validity; neither of these scenarios are true however: Orthogenesis and outright Saltationism have been proposed in the past, and have now been discarded. There are one or two other evolution franework alternatives that have been discarded as well. There is no discussion to have in this context until new evidence is presented which challenges evolution. If it does and it is serious stuff, then science will adapt and incorporate the new knowledge, as it always does.