Why the religious will never admit you won the argument (and why they don't care)

[SteveII]

For those that want to know more about this subject, they should read about it from a scientist and not the interpretation of a non-scientist (me). 

Antonis Rokas , Sean B Carroll
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/art...io.0040352

So are you claiming that if there are limits to what can be determined concerning evolutionary history through the protein record, evolution is probably false?

There seems to be some confusion about the point I am making. I am not trying to disprove evolution.

I'm am claiming that if there are gaps in our knowledge (especially in the subject of the mechanism of evolution), one has to be more careful about using 'evolution' and 'fact' in the same sentence (as you did above regarding billions of theists). It simply is not true that biological evolution (defined as the end-to-end theory) is a fact because how can we say that if there are gaps in our knowledge? These gaps in our knowledge are not simply missing dinosaur puppy fossils, these gaps have to do with mechanisms and systems and relationships--extremely necessary components to the theory. It is more accurate to say "parts of the theory of evolution are fact", "decent with modification is a fact", "natural selection is a fact", etc.