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.
Are you, tonight, stating as a fact that evolution is false?
Yes or No.....
By your flimsy standard, Newtonian physics were also disproved, and now we have quantum mechanics. Despite that fact, we have retained those elements of Newtonian physics to the extent and in the cases where they apply. Moreover, we never would've had quantum mechanics had we not first had thermodynamics, universal gravitation, and differential calculus.
If Darwinian evolution has been disproven, it is in the way that Newtonian Physics has been "disproven" by Einstein -- which is to say, tweaked around the edges, or shown not to apply in bizarre and unearthly circumstances. Is Newton's theory a sham and a hoax? If so, why do you quote him as an authority. (I wouldn't quote him as an authority for a number of reasons. First, he was not a biologist. Second, arguments from authority are inherently weak. Third, he lived hundreds of years ago and knew little of the evidence which is now apparent.)