[Old_Mil]

You (and others) are attempting to make the point that since Newton's observations constituted a "law", and Einstein's constituded a "theory", that somehow Darwin's speculative story has equal weight at the table of scientific discourse as empiricism. Sorry to say, that's ridiculous.

The reality of the situation was that Newton stated that certain physical laws govern objects (we know this to be true at the level of the reference frame of earth), and Einstein expanded this knowledge to the (gross) universe. Through quantum mechanics we may yet get to a GUT. Nevertheless, none of this invalidates what Newton first observed.

[RadioAstronomer]

Nevertheless, none of this invalidates what Newton first observed.

Not true. Even using an Earth reference frame, I must take into accout relativity.

Also the theory of evolution is at least on par with (actually far exceeds) gravitational theory.

[Dimensio]

You (and others) are attempting to make the point that since Newton's observations constituted a "law", and Einstein's constituded a "theory", that somehow Darwin's speculative story has equal weight at the table of scientific discourse as empiricism.

This is not true. The motive for referencing Newton's Laws and Einstein's Theories was to demonstrate that your claim that "laws" somehow supercede theories is incorrect. That Darwin's theory is at least on par with -- and in many cases on better footing than -- other scientific explanations such as relativity or atomics is a different discussion.

Nevertheless, none of this invalidates what Newton first observed.

On the contrary. Newton believed his observations to be universal, hence his "Law of Universal Gravitation". This is now known to be false.