1. Scientific theories are there to give explanation to the confirmed observations (facts) and hypotheses that are part of a systematic quest for knowledge. That a theory is quantitative in focus does not make that theory better or worse as far as science is concerned. Natural selection does make quantitative predictions, for example, Bergmann's rule. 2. No so, read papers by Rosemary and Peter Grant concerning their work on the Galapagos Islands. Additionally, bacteria acquire resistance in real time. This is, certainly, a function of natural selection. 3. True. There are no plausible accounts for the origins of life. However, it is a misnomer to claim that natural selection has any thing to say about "origin-of-life" questions. Natural selection (in the simplistic sense) works on reproducing populations of organisms that are competing for limited resources. This is not the case for the first-and-only organism in a "sea" of resources. 4. Irreducible complexity: read previous post for my thoughts on this issue. The logic of irreducible complexity is flawed. 5. Again, natural selection does not need the fossil record. However, the world over, the fossil record is consistent and provides ample backup for the theory of common descent. In a created universe why would not Homo habilis be found in an undisturbed statigraphic layer beneath a Tyrannosaur? In fact, since you are trained in geology, you must be aware that certain stratigraphic layers are dated based on the associated fossil assemblages. Another prediction? Insert in #1, above. 6. Replication of interacting ecosystems on a computer would seem a daunting and not-too-successful enterprise. Find me someone who could program those types of variables, successfully, and you and I might be able to convince him/her to provide us a stock-market-prediction program. 7. A laboratory is not an ecosystem. Funded research would probably never, even if given the time and funds necessary, produce new species. 8. That's the beauty of natural selection. Very small differences in genotype can have "significant" differences in phenotypic expression. But, look again, as I asked earlier: What would constitute the "created type"? How would one have a viable, scientific systematics, based on a "created" paradigm? Remember, science does not admit supernaturalistic phenomena. Dave Gary