[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
As I said in another post, undesigned evolution will always change when anything about it is falsified.

[/ QUOTE ]
Darwin's theory basically comes down to this:

1. Organisms have mechanisms for producing varied copies of themselves, sometimes with novel traits.
2. Natural selection means that some organisms will not survive to reproduce. In general, these organisms will be the ones with traits that are least suited to survival in their environment
3. This is sufficient to explain all life on earth.
4. This is what actually happened.

People often conflate these points, so let's look at them separately.

(1) and (2) are proven true by observation. Only the mechanisms and degree are of debate.

(3) is a question of finding plausible and likely mechanisms for (1) and (2) to produce all the organisms on earth. Since Darwin's time we've discovered DNA as the blueprint of life, which contains the capacity for change and the development of novel features. The incredible fossil record of animals like the horse indicate that mechanisms for wide scale change exist and have happened in the past. For example, we know for a fact that paws can become hooves, shoulder joints can tilt forward slowly into a different configuration, teeth can change to be suitable for chewing grass, and digestive systems can evolve from omnivorous to dealing with a diet of grass. There are many, many other examples where history has proven that large scale evolution can occur by natural means. Another example is the transition from reptiles to mammals which has a superb fossil record. Of course, God could have put the fossils there with the correct gradations, in chronological order in the correct strata so that it looked exactly like natural evolution. He could also be David Sklansky.

The only reason Darwin's theory is so accepted today is because we have found these things, and their existence overwhelming suggests evolution by natural selection is not only possible, but expected to produce the variation we see.

(4) is a question of what actually happened. Reconstructing the fossil record and reconciling observed patterns of life with other information such as geological records is the best we will ever get. You can hide in there if you wish.

Also note that Darwin's theory is falsifiable, and there is evidence that would destroy it, never to be resurrected. If we found evidence that the earth is 6000 years old (or even a million), evolution would be dead. If we found evidence of a flood 5000 years ago, as suggested in your holy book, evolution would be dead. If we found fossil records or existing species that didn't fit neatly into a model of common descent in the phylogenic tree, evolution would be in deep, deep [censored]. We haven't even had to invoke the alien theory - if we found old stands of Eucalypts growing in California, evolution would have some explaining to do. In fact, the degree to which plant and animal populations fit the geological history of the world is simply astounding. It fits exactly with what we'd expect if things had evolved.

You assert that evolution would just change if it was falsified. That's not true. There are a heap of things which would completely destroy any theory of evolution. This is because it requires:

- sufficient time
- a strong element of common descent
- a physical mechanism for variation and creation of novel traits
- a coherent phylogenic tree
- agreement with the geological and cosmological record

Evolution has passed all these tests with flying colors, and continues to do so with each new bit of information we receive about the world. What does that tell you?