Darwin's theory makes no tight quantitative predictions at all.
"Darwin's" theory predicts that new fossils found will be more developed in newer rock strata. Perhaps millions of fossils have been cataloged since then, the prediction has held.
Field studies attempting to measure natural selection inevitably report weak-to-nonexistent selection effects.
I don't know what to make of this, a link would be nice. My field studies report strong natural selection effects for deer that can't hide during deer season.
Darwin's theory is open at one end, because there is no plausible account for the origins of life.
"Darwin's" theory does'nt address the origins of life. It is not a theory of everything.
The astonishing and irreducible complexity of various cellular structures has not yet successfully been described, let alone explained.
If it has'nt been discribed then the above statement is as valid as 'The astonishing and irreducible complexity of thunder has not yet successfully been discribed, let alone explained.' was 100 years ago. You do get the point of that don't you? (my understanding is we pretty much understand thunder today, lightning on the other hand is about as well understood as evolution.)
A great many species enter the fossil record trailing no obvious ancestors, and depart leaving no obvious descendants.
Examples of the former (no ancestors) should be easy for you to link to then. The latter (no descendants) is obvious.
Where attempts to replicate Darwinian evolution on the computer have been successful, they have not used classical Darwinian principles, and where they have used such principles, they have not been successful.
Again the statement makes little sense. What are classical Darwinian principles? This is science (on evolutions side), we are allowed to change our theorys as new data comes in.
Tens of thousands of fruit flies have come and gone in laboratory experiments, and every last one of them has remained a fruit fly to the end, all efforts to see the miracle of speciation unavailing.
Wrong time scale, and speciation has been forced with lower forms.
The remarkable similarity in the genome of a great many organisms suggests that there is at bottom only one living system; but how then to account for the astonishing differences between human beings and their near relatives -- differences that remain obvious to anyone who has visited a zoo?
More babble. How do creationists account for the similarity of behavior of their little darlings (Homo-simians) on the playground and apes in the zoo?
I would be really interested in your 'more developed' example.