What is obvious is that Darwin called his own fouls, and any one of those errata discounts the entire theory - And those errata exist to this day. To move Darwinian Evolution forward as science (rather than religion), each of those errata (and more, btw) must be disproved and explained. True science is not about proving a theory, but rather, in disproving the theory, no matter how pretty it is. The theory must withstand all criticism, and criticism should be rigorous.
Anthropological Global Warming should be a very big clue as to the state of modern science. If you have a brain in your head, you should find AGW an absurdity on it's face, with proven tampering with evidence only reinforcing the ludicrous nature of the claim... One would look at it, no doubt, with a very jaundiced eye.
With that same skeptical view (which I submit, is proper science), one can see that the very same conditions exist within modern evolution theory (with the same sort of tampering from the very beginning). I am in the comfortable position of needing only to point to ONE point of error - I don't even have to provide a reasonable alternative... That one point of error collapses the entirety of the theory.
I shouldn't need to remind people that it isn't the abundance of evidence that proves a theory, but rather, the utter absence of error. That which is supposedly obvious is not necessarily true.
Homo sapiens, ( Latin: “wise man”)
Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools [...]
But there is no "entire theory", just two basic, indisputable facts: 1) Descent with modifications and 2) Natural selection.
Those are the innumerable-times observed and confirmed facts on which Darwin's theory of speciation rests.
And Darwin's theory merely says: if what we see from animal husbandry, and in nature itself, continues over long periods of time, the results can be increasing speciation.
Period, that's it -- no more, no less.
Yes, Darwin did speculate on how life may have originated, but he offered no theories, nor have we any strongly confirmed theories today -- just a number of hypotheses.
And what so amazing about Darwin's theory is that he knew nothing -- zero -- about genetics, much less DNA, and yet he essentially guessed it entirely correct.
Sure, sharp-shooters like yourself wish to debate the speed of evolution -- is it fast, or slow, or sometimes one & the other?
(the answer is: all of the above, depending on conditions).
But none of that effects the basic theory, and the confirming scientific evidence has grown, over the decades, to overwhelming, with no -- zero, zip, nada -- confirmed falsifying evidence.
Confirming evidence of evolution has poured in, from every branch of science -- from fossil morphology and radiometric dating to bio-chemistry and DNA comparative analysis, to physics-astronomy confirming the ages of stars & galaxies, to actual measurements of mutation rates and speciation requirements.
Nowhere is evidence found strongly falsifying Darwin's basic idea, everywhere evidence piles confirmation on top of confirmation.
So, you suppose that with one brilliant argument, you can deflate the entire theory, but you can't deny the facts, and that's why most scientists consider evolution as much fact as theory.
roamer_1: "Anthropological Global Warming should be a very big clue as to the state of modern science.
If you have a brain in your head, you should find AGW an absurdity on it's face..."
That same geological evidence which confirms Darwinian evolution also tells us that the earth warms and cools significantly, over time, naturally, without human interference.
It tells us that the current Ice Age began around 2.6 million years ago and consists of approximately 100,000 years of glaciation, interspersed by warm periods of maybe 15,000 years.
Our current interglacial is about 12,000 years old, meaning, it's getting long of tooth.
So, can human activity delay the next ice age?
Maybe, a little, but probably not much.
On the other hand, our time scale here is thousands of years in the future, very hard to predict...
That's what I'd call science, the rest is politics, the new home for old apparatchiks of international socialism.
None of which has anything to do with theories relating to evolution.