Hey +Paul May
, thanks for the response. The Wiki article on "Darwinism" does suggest that creationists use the term negatively, but it also suggests that it's quite a neutral term for scientists and cites usage among scientists. I didn't mean to cause disruption by my usage of the term.
It's the "what's been found since" that I've personally wondered about. What I mean is, I've wondered not about the truth of it, but about the methodology of it. I can't imagine how something like the scientific method outlined in this post would be executed on events that take millions of years to occur.
I get it with stars, since there are relatively few types, and billions of data points to look at. You can literally see the various "transitional states", if you will, by looking around. They are also "simple" enough that we can run computer simulations with our theoretical data and prove out what happens.
Life is a bit trickier though, as it is complex enough that (again as far as I've seen) we can't model one species becoming another with computer simulation. There are also many more types of life and observing transitional states today just isn't possible.
If you could point me in the direction of "what's been found since" I'd be grateful. I really don't need evidence for it, I'm just looking for how the methodology stacks up against the post above. Again, my intention was not to bring religion into this.