Creationism v. Evolution

My niece posted a question earlier asking why, if evolution is real, we don't see apes evolving into people all the time. Usually I keep quiet when these statements are made. But for whatever reason, I responded, very simply, that evolution doesn't work like that, and that anyone who argues that it does is obviously not aware of what evolution is. After another brief exchange (again, I'm being very noncommittal), someone posts the following response to the thread:

Creationist:
Sunny, Niecie (name changed), upon asking such a question one needs to understand two things. One; What is a "species". And Two; Do you understand the difference between the LAW of Adaptation and the THEORY of Evolution. A Law is indisputable, without argument and factual. Such as the Law of Gravity. A theory is simply that, a THEORY as in thought and an undertermined hypothesis of scientific thought. Like the Theory of Static Universe or the Expanding Earth or the Martian Canals. Niecie your statement is commical and it is used by many Creationists. Creationists think it is the end all be all of argument against evolution but educating ourselves on the issue tell us this statement is apples v/s oranges. Sunny, what evidence do you have sir. There is no evidence of evolution period. No species has ever "evolved" to be a different species. Example, tigers and household cats: both feline, same species. Canadian huskies and shit zu's: both canines. There is a reason why there is no missing link! Apes are not the same species as human beings. Similar yes, however koalas are similar to bear but are of a different species. Please do not argue with me about this. Wyndie? Really? Rattlesnakes sitll have rattles unless mutated.

Now, again, I fought with myself over whether I should respond to this. I mean, my niece is very firm in her beliefs, and I'm not interested in changing her, or even influencing her. However, this individual has essentially suggested that I'm an idiot, and he backs up his claims with falsehoods. So naturally, I decided to respond.I am posting this here because this topic has been bugging me for a while, and I've been thinking of writing something about it, but I've not gotten around to it. This situation simply presented itself, and I decided to roll with it. So if you ever want to know my views on the Creationism v. Evolution debate, this will pretty well sum it up. And bonus points, I didn't, not once, attack religion.

Mr. Creationist (name changed) -

First, allow me to state that where I come from, it is considered disrespectful to address someone with whom you are unfamiliar as though you were acquainted. I have, at this point, extended the courtesy of using your surname; I will politely request you return the courtesy.

Secondly, a creationist asking someone to provide evidence in support of evolution is akin to asking a sighted person to describe color to someone who was not only born blind, but who has a firm belief that sight does not exist. Such a sighted person could provide rich and vibrant descriptions, and yet the blind individual would still not understand, not for lack of clarity in description or lack of intelligence on the part of the blind person, but because the blind person has firmly disavowed that sight is possible. This is not an attack on your person, your intelligence, or your position; I will get to that in a minute. This is simply to say that the evidence for creationism is literally nonexistent, while the evidence for evolution has been gathered and replicated to the point where it is considered to be a fact. Could I provide references for you to read through? Sure, if I was so motivated and I believed you would actually read them. But the fact is, that would be a waste of my time.

This brings me to my next point. You may have thought that differentiating the word theory from the word law was some kind of trump-like play. However, you are obviously quite misguided in your understanding of theory as it applies to science. Evolution has been considered a scientific fact (i.e., a law in your vernacular) for quite some time, while different theories on the exact mechanisms that drive the adaptive changes over generations are postulated, researched, and either accepted or refuted. The same is true with the scientific fact of gravity, which you referred to; gravity was a fact for a long time before humans ever began to comprehend it scientifically, and in the time since it has been “discovered”, several models have been postulated, researched, and either accepted or refuted. It is only relatively recently that Einstein’s Theory of Relativity has supplanted the previous theories postulated by Sir Isaac Newton, and it is entirely possible that at some distant point in the future, someone will make discoveries that will force Einstein’s work to be considered irrelevant. But for now, Einstein’s theory allows us to understand physics in a much more complete way than the Newtonian system allowed.

Moving along, I noticed that you referred to tigers and household cats as belonging to the same species. This is incorrect. You seem to have forgotten that the taxonomy from which the term species is derived contains seven distinct categories: kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. You are correct that tigers and household cats share the same kingdom, phylum, class, order, and family (Animalia, Chordata, Mammalia, Carnivora, and Felidae, respectively). However, the tiger is from the genus Panthera and the species tigris, while the household cat is from the genus Felus and the species catus (or domesticus, depending on the source). So, your carefully prepared statement about apes (the group consisting of Chimpanzees, Gorillas, and Orangutans) and humans being different species is absolutely correct: they all share the same kingdom, phylum, class, order, and family (Animalia, Chordata, Mammalia, Primates, and Hominidae, respectively), but here they diverge into their own genus and species (Gorilla berengei for gorillas, Pan troglodytes for chimpanzees, Pongo pygmaeus or Pongo abelii for orangutans, and Homo sapiens for humans). However, evolution does not claim that humans (Homo sapiens) evolved from any of the apes; it suggests, rather, that humans evolved from earlier versions of humans (Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, Homo ergaster, Homo georgicus, Homo antecessor, Homo cepranensis, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo rhodesiensis, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo sapiens idaltu, Archaic Homo sapiens, and Homo floresiensis).

In closing, I would like to point out as a reminder that this began with my niece asking a statement that was based on false understanding. My response simply stated that she did not understand evolution, and that those who view evolution in such a way do not understand it; this is a fact. I followed this up with the statement that evolution has more evidence in its support than the alternative; this is also a fact. Finally, I warned my niece arguing this with me and told her to talk with her father about it, because I’m trying to refrain from imposing my perspective on her. Had this been left alone, it would have gone no further. But the thing about this massively expensive education I’m sporting is that it doesn’t allow me to sit back and take whatever someone is saying without questioning the statement. I’ve paid some incredibly impressive people a lot of money to lecture at me on a variety of topics, and I question every single one of them; I’m certainly not going to sit by while someone who happens to know my brother’s family verbally demeans myself, my sister, and my niece’s intellect. And although I am certain that the information contained in this post will likely be ignored or dismissed, I will not allow someone whose own understanding of the topic is tenuous (at best) to question my own.

Good day, sir.