you: Oh, please. How many revisions of the Standard Model have there been in the past 100 years? How many times have we heard that a "particle" is fundamental, only to hear later about evidence of parts. How many revisions of the Periodic Table have there been? And yet chemistry still works, much of it with the same dreary equations that presuppose electrons and protons. With all the babble about contradictory evidence in biology, there is exactly zero evidence contradicting common descent.
Evidence which contradicts the theory of evolution (interpreted as random mutations - natural selection > species) include the absence of new body plans after the Cambrian explosion, absence of evidence in the continuum of the geologic record, master control genes being resistant to mutation, rise of functional complexity, semiosis, autonomy, intelligence and successful communication (information) in biological life.
If biology were a discipline like physics, all of these would be cause to revisit the theory of evolution to see if it needed to be enhanced or restructured. As illustrated in the above post at 621, the absence of evidence concerning the Higgs field/boson has physicists revisiting the Standard Model.
There are a lot of constants where evolution would have variables?
AAAARRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
At best, A-Girl, what you've got there is a list of interesting research projects for PhD candidates to work on. I don't see anything that even remotely contradicts evolution. But this thread is way too long, and no one is likely to jump in at this stage, so we should save it for another thread. Perhaps after this Bush/Frist/ID mess calms down, if it ever does. I'm not up to getting into anything serious at the present.