No, that's your assumption. The basic theory does not assume lower or upper boundaries for the ability of species to change.
Your right.
It doesn't really assume them, it just turns a blind eye to it, and refuses to recognize them.
There is no "Law of Gravity". There is "Newton's Law of Gravity" and Einstein's General Relativity which both put forward explanations of the observed effects of gravity (which are not universally observable... they're only observable to us because we live inside a gravity well... vacuum dwellers might have a different view...), but there is no "Law" as you state. Just the observation that bodies tend to attract each other through unknown means.
*Strangely, despite being superseded by General Relativity, Newton's Theory is still "Law..."
To paraphrase one of your statements, you do realize the law of gravity was around before You or Newton.
Just as we see an abundance of genetically similar but distinct species and we see incomplete speciation and even the process of speciation (flies, weeds, bacteria, etcetera ad infinitum) but cannot directly observe the means by which this comes to pass. Thus, our understanding of Gravity is the same as our understanding of Evolution. In fact, it's a whole level less well defined than Evolution, because you can actually observe speciation at the genetic level if you have the right equipment. You can't observe "gravitons."
Neither can you observe Evolution on the scale claimed.
I can observe the repeatable result of gravity readily at any time.
Likewise, I can observe the repeatable result of like-kind reproduction at any time.
Thats because they are fixed laws.
The possibility of Evolution exsists only in the abstract, untestable, unobservable, unsubstantiatable, time frame.
Evolution does not claim that species "jump." All it claims is that they change over time, which they do. Only once such changes become incontrovertible and the species can no longer mate with other sub-species or the base species does they become new ones. No "jumps" required. Just thousands upon thousands of generations of change.
Quite convienent, wouldn't you say?
Just plug in an irrefutable unpredictable time expanse.
Too bad its unsubstantiatable as well.
Evolution makes no claims as to the endpoint of adaptation. Just the process..
Round and round she goes, where she stops, nobody knows.
Perhaps you could take a stab at what it claims from the common ancestor up to the present?
[Horses don't always produce horses. Haven't we been through this already last year? Horses have partially speciated, which is why we have Donkeys, Mules and Zebramules and other imperfect offspring of the miscegenetization between horses. .
Well this should hold great promise for intermediate species.
All of these have been around for quite sometime.
How many new species have developed, particularly from the mule side?
[Mules are an exception, in your book. But an exception to what? In science, exceptions don't prove the rule. They kill it. Any hypothesis which doesn't allow for mules is automatically bunk.
Its an exception in that you can breed two somewhat different species and get an offspring.
But then it is totally nullified by sterilization.
So much for that new species.
Thats just what it does to Evolution. Kills it.
Yet there are no exceptions to Evolution. Species which do not appear to physically change over time do not disprove Evolution, as it does not require that species exhibit morphological change if they survive just fine.
I think we're back to the claims again.
Flies? Flies are the easiest of all creatures to speciate. Scientists do it in the laboratory over lunch, for fun.
Yes and they still get flies.
Big surprise.
Note: You can't just handwave this away: "But they're still horses and flies." All equines are horses and all flies are... flies only in the same manner that all primates are chimpanzees. It's a semantic falsehood.
No, its an observable, repeatable, constant.
And you claim to know so much about Science. 
