That greatly glosses over what evolutionists do.
The conclusion comes first: All life evolved from a common ancestor.
This conclusion is never questioned. That would be sacrilege.
New evidence is found, scientists see that their theory on how evolution "must have worked" is incorrect, so they alter their theory and say evolution "must have worked this way". But then new evidence is found and so the scientists say "Ooops. I guess evolution worked THIS way".
And they say "that's what a good scientist does, we take into account new evidence as it becomes available." I say it's BS. A good scientist checks his premise once in a while. Your premise is your conclusion. And your conclusion is your premise. It's rotten science.
No it's not BS. It's how ALL of science is done. Theories are developed with the information available at hand. The same thing is done in quantum mechanics, gravity, chemistry, astronomy, geology, biology, etc. As we learn more, the theories are refined. As more is learned, things get changed. With respect to evolution, there is nothing that has refuted evolution and simultaneously has satisfactorally explained things in biology as well as evolution has.
That's about as false a statement as I've seen recently.
Natural selection is the theory developed to account for observed phenomena. Not the other way around.