[Condorman]

Again, every new fossil is a test of evolution. Evolution provides an explanatory framework that fits the known fossils. If a new fossil fits within that framework, evolution is strengthened. If not, the theory is altered to account for it.

Not incidentally, many of the major fossil frauds and hoaxes were exposed because they didn't fit the existing framework.

[Rachumlakenschlaff]

Again, every new fossil is a test of evolution. Evolution provides an explanatory framework that fits the known fossils. If a new fossil fits within that framework, evolution is strengthened. If not, the theory is altered to account for it.

Not incidentally, many of the major fossil frauds and hoaxes were exposed because they didn't fit the existing framework.

The problem with this model, and the problem with calling this science, is that it is guaranteed that evolution will never be disproven; because all you have to do is change the model to fit the new discoveries. That's what Gould did with punctuated equilibrium. Gradualism was disproven by the fossil record so, poof!, change by macromutation replaces micromutation and it's still called evolution!!!

Evolution in the broad sense is philosophy. However, the underlying mechanisms (the scientific part of evolution) that have been proposed over the years have one by one shown to be wrong or have serious problems. But, since it is allowed that any underlying mechanism can be changed to fit the facts and it is still labeled "evolution", it can never be disproven by definition. So the philosophy of evolution remains while the science of evolution changes as needed to suppport the philosophy. Conveniently, both are labeled evolution.