[TalonDJ]

Your kidding right? We just got done talk about the embryo thing. They use to tout that as clear irrefutable proof. The of evidence for evolution may grow (I will not make that broad arrogant assumption that I know the running total on that score) but a great many things once thought to be key evidence have been refuted. That is a fact. Maybe things have replaced them and maybe those will get refuted too. To believe they will not to the point of not questioning is the leave that path of science and dabble in the area of pure faith.

[TalonDJ]

What I mean to say is that the theory is in a state of constant change based on evidence that comes and goes. To believe it ALL supports evolution when much of it is contradictory (based on known theories) or in flux (subject to revised interpretations) is an exercise in faith and not science.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

The of evidence for evolution may grow (I will not make that broad arrogant assumption that I know the running total on that score) but a great many things once thought to be key evidence have been refuted. That is a fact.

I'm not aware of anything that was key to Darwin's theory or any modern version of the theory that has been refuted. Haeckel's embryo drawings were dry-labbed, but he was basically correct.

What examples do you have of any evidence refuting evolution?