The basis of a valid scientific theory is that it be able to explain all the scientific data in the field it is concerned with and that no evidence contradicting the theory be true. This is a harsh test, but one which all legitimate scientific theories must pass. This is a test which the theory of evolution has failed in spades as the following abundantly shows.
A better understanding of the scientific method and scientific terminology might lead you to rethink your rash statements. A "theory" is a conceptual framework. A "hypothesis" is a working assumption. There are four basics steps in the scientific method:
(1) Observation and description of a process, phenomenon, or set of phenomena.
(2) Formulation of a hypothesis to explain the processes or phenomena.
(3) Use of the hypothesis to predict the existance of other processes, phenomena, or additional observable events.
(4) Tests of the predictions by other observors or experiments.
The so-called "theory of evolution" is actually a complex interaction of several theories, observations, descriptions, and phenomena. Naturally, the quality and quantity of the evidence is key in developing the conceptual framework. Unfortunately, the fossil record is much like a 1,000 piece jigsaw puzzle. Today, paleontologists are trying to piece together and describe the nature of the puzzle when they only have a few dozens of pieces. Even if they have solid assumptions about what the puzzle should resemble, they must, through the scientific process, test and re-test their hypotheses.
If the "present is the key to the past" (uniformitarianism), then a proper understanding of present-day biological and biochemical processes might provide some guidance to understanding how those processes might have operated in the past. I would say our absolute understanding of these processes is in its formative stage. I would expect changes in evolutionary theory to occur all the time.
"Evolution" is such a complex framework, there is no scientist who will claim that it is an undeniable fact. In fact, most geo- and bio-scientists expect new discoveries to modify and add to the existing knowledge base. The scientific knowledge of biological processes has grown by leaps and bounds over the past fifty years. The same could be said about the status of the earth sciences.
Finding out what "went wrong" to a scientist is as important as the development of the original hypothesis. The new data allows the modification and re-casting of the hypothesis for re-testing. That is what the scientific method is about.
The mere suggestion of an alternative or supplementary hypothesis does not, in and of itself, disprove the first hypothesis. Factually disproving a part of a complex framework does not in and of itself invalidate the entire framework.
It is not my intention to be part of a flame war online, as most of these creation science threads become. But, like any good debater, if you wish to engage in a debate, at least formulate a premise with fewer holes than a round of swiss cheese.
A theory makes definite statements. A 'moving target' which is what you claim evolution is is neither a theory nor science, it is an ideology.
Today, paleontologists are trying to piece together and describe the nature of the puzzle when they only have a few dozens of pieces.
Evolutionists have been giving this excuse for 150 years. Seems to me it is time they stop claiming that sometime in the future....
Furthermore, even with fossils there is ample evidence against evolution. It is called the Cambrian explosion. There is also the missing evidence - that in all important places, the fossil evidence is missing. That is why Gould and Eldredge had to formulate the nonsensical theory of punctuated equilibrium.
The new data allows the modification and re-casting of the hypothesis for re-testing.
The above seems a pretty big concession by you to what I am saying - that evolution keeps being disproved. Indeed it does keep getting disproved. If a theory is so bad at showing the way for scientific inquiry why should we hold on to it? Why should we call it science? Because you like it? Sorry, that's not a scientific reason. Further, when theories are disproven they are thrown in the garbage heap of history. Evolution has been disproven. Time to bury it.