1. Seek is trying to show you that evolution is just as "supernatural" as creationism and is not scientific as it is based on stories, rather than directly from EMPIRICAL evidence. So please stop saying evolution is scientific when its been shown to you that stories are not scientific.
The empirical evidence is astounding similarities in all life forms, including fossilized ones.
However, my question was how one would explain these similarities without the use of a creator.
2. You could could you? You do realise that in order to do so you'd need to show a line of progresion through the fossil record... Consisting of multiple transitional forms showing each stage of development from the so-called macro-evolutionary mutations. NO scientist has been able to do so, hence in my opinion your chances are slim.
There are no "stages of development," as everything is transitional. It's like a conveyor belt carrying loads of samples past us, every new one being a bit different than the previous one, and we reach down from time to time and pick one up to study it. You don't need every single step, you only need enough steps and enough similarities between forms in order to induce an ancestry.
3. Gravity is a Law, it was shown in the OP... Hence you cannot use it as an analogy for evolution... (Which you admitted to before)
Well, then we can use any other theory, say, the theory of atoms, or cell theory. Or just say "theory of general relativity" instead of "theory of gravity."
4. So what "mechanisms" are these... Can they be attributed to a mathematical formula just like gravity? Or are they whimsical in nature and thus are subject to interpretation rather than factual analysis.
Passing on of genetic information to offspring (observed)
Survival of organisms in their environment (observed)
Ecological niches (observed)
That's what I meant with mechanisms, the basic things that lead to life changing over time by adapting to its environment.
5. Wrong! Neither are theories in science, as science is upheld via EMPIRICAL validity. Neither "theory" is empirically validated hence they cannot be actual theories.
The talk was about the theory of gravity (or theory of general relativity, if you will) and the theory of evolution.