It's not my boat. Evolution is well supported with very specific falsifiable tests. Understand, there's no mainstream widespread controversy over the basic foundations of evolution outside of evangelicals and Islamists. There's no great debate going on except in your little cargo cult.
You can try:
*If it could be shown that mutations do not occur.
*If it could be shown that, although mutations do occur, they are not passed down through the generations.
*If it could be shown that, although mutations are passed down, no mutation could produce the sort of phenotypic changes that drive natural selection.
*If it could be shown that selection or environmental pressures do not favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals.
Like I said, provide a falsificaiton of evolution and the world will beat a path to your door, and you will be the recipient of untold fame and riches.
Or you could just keep making excuses.
OK. Now it’s up to you to prove the contention that if enough mutations occur, often enough, over a long enough period of time, that it can account for the variety of life we see here on earth now.
Perhaps you could start by answering the questions in post 35 with something besides the derision evidenced by Oceander. After all, the questions were not even asking for predictions which should come next, but rather are asking about the changes that have occurred in the past, of which there should be evidence in the fossil record.
In the event that that is beyond your pay grade, then maybe an easier task would be to explain the changes in the number of chromosomes from the initial single celled creatures from which all life theoretically evolved, could manage to occur without causing the demise of the organism, as the changes in the number of chromosomes tends to.
There is, after all, a large range of the numbers of chromosomes in the life represented here on earth.
I can not think of a single case of a change in the number of chromosomes in a human being which does not result in debilitating conditions which either kill the off the mutation or render the organism sterile. Most changes in chromosomes are incompatible with the life form even living. How is this supposed to work and fill an entire planet with the variety we see now of successfully adapting creatures?
Has any of the work in laboratories that has allegedly resulted in a *new* creature, even if it is the same old fruit fly, resulted in an actual change in the number of chromosomes in said fruit flies?
Then what are they? How many times do I have to ask the same question before you admit you have no answer. None of your bullet-points constitute falsifiability in that none of them address the validity of how you string each discrete element together to arrive at your conclusion.
The existence of paper, lines, blueprints, and copy machines does not prove copying those plans enough times will occasionally result in the spontaneous generation of new and useful rooms in subsequent copies.
Finally, please save me the sophistry of your "...provide a falsificaiton of evolution and the world will beat a path to your door," nonsense. Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" as well as "Planck's Dictum" are both well established enough to make your assertion disingenuous at best, and mendacious at worst.
Maybe; but FALSIFYING it would imply that it has been PROVEN to begin with.
PROVING it might make a better headline.