[mywholebodyisaweapon]

Beware of those of the 29+ evidences that rely on bootstrapping or other resampling techniques. They really prove nothing other than the biases of those who use them.

On the other hand, those of the 29+ evidences that deal with transitional fossils and correlation of the column with progression of species are quite compelling.

But to be fair to creationists, it should be acknowledged that evolution is a theory that has been evolving. It's rather difficult to critique a theory that morphs into something else before one's eyes.

[Physicist]

But to be fair to creationists, it should be acknowledged that evolution is a theory that has been evolving. It's rather difficult to critique a theory that morphs into something else before one's eyes.

The core issue to which the creationists object is common descent. That's the real target of their cultural cleansing campaign, and it hasn't moved one inch.

Beyond that, Darwinism hasn't really changed much at all. The details have been fleshed out, and sometimes debated vigorously, but I don't think there's anything in Darwin's Origin of Species that hasn't stood the test of time. Certainly the core arguments remain unaltered.

[js1138]

It's rather difficult to critique a theory that morphs into something else before one's eyes.

That would include all of science. Consider heliocentrism. Firs it included epicycles, then elliptical orbits, then universal gravitation, then general relativity. And it's not done yet.

Evolution is a forensic statement about the history of life, and it is a collection of phenomena and processes comprising a theory to explain the history. Few scientific theories have undergone less fundamental changes in the last 150 years than variation and natural selection.

[Virginia-American]

Beware of those of the 29+ evidences that rely on bootstrapping or other resampling techniques. They really prove nothing other than the biases of those who use them.

Please be more specific. What's wrong with which of them?

.... But to be fair to creationists, it should be acknowledged that evolution is a theory that has been evolving. It's rather difficult to critique a theory that morphs into something else before one's eyes.

What on earth are you talking about? The most famous "change" in the theory in the last 20-odd years is punctuated equilibrium - except this is already in "Origin", so it's not much of a change. There's certainly more fossil and genetic data, but the theory itself hasn't changed much since DNA was discovered - gotten more detailed, sure, but not really changed.