It's not wrong, not at all.
What you mean to say is the theory has LIMITED SCOPE.
Alright, would you agree then that Newtonian mechanics has been falsified? It predicts X but we observe Y?
You're entitled to be skeptical.
But I will repeat that evolution is biophysical, it has very little to do with fossils. Or species.
Biophysical or not, the fossils do represent snapshots of state over time don't they? Many books state emphatically that the fossil record is one of the pillars supporting evolution so your view that it is incidental is at odds with the literature surely?
The fossil record is artifactual. It is merely one possible trajectory.
Evolution is biophysical. It occurs at the level of DNA molecules. Everything that happens after that is artifactual.
Right but the fossils are presumed to record a history of those DNA changes, closely related fossils imply closely related DNA (most of the time).
No it isn't. Your lack of understanding does not equate with impossibility.
I never used the world "impossibility" though, the fossil record is only consistent with the claims of evolution if any missing yet expected artifacts are set aside, the "gaps" for want of a better word are assumed to be nothing more than a failure to preserve, but how can you be sure there was anything to preserve?
This is the case with the Cambrian, look at just one mollusk - Anomalocaris - that was quite a big animal, fossils suggest specimens could be as large as a mid sized dog. That beast had compound eyes who's complexity rivals that of the best compound eyes we see in nature today, with
some 16,000 hexagonal cells. Yet the fossils for this complex, large animal always appear more or less that form, everywhere we find them they are recognizable as Anomalocaris yet in none of the places we find them do we find any evidence of a gradual evolutionary ancestral chain.
In short there's no fossil evidence that Anomalocaris did evolve, yet I am expected to believe these ancestors did actually exist - why should I believe that without evidence? that's precisely what atheists complain about in theism, belief without evidence, yet here you are doing precisely that.
Only if one is willing to argue that large macro changes can evolve in a few generations, but it starts to get absurd, basically one needs to believe that evolution can achieve anything at which point we have to ask how then can it ever be falsified? if every case where it seems to be falsified is dismissed as simply being an apparent falsification?
I can stick a pin in a tadpole at just the right time, and when the frog grows up it will have an arm where its eye is supposed to be.
We understand "almost nothing" about biological development, historical or otherwise.
Again, the actual evidence then doesn't matter, evolution does explain today's animal world irrespective of evidence or want thereof, as i said such hypotheses cannot be falsified when the tolerance for disparity between theory and observation is allowed to be huge.
Evolution is biophysical. Mutations consist of changes in the DNA sequence. Selection consists of success or failure of those changes in the niche. Period.
I make no claims about the relationship to shape, fossils, species, or anything else.
What I know and can prove is, claims of impossibility are completely bogus.
I'm not claiming impossibility, I am saying that the fossil evidence (and the absence of it) seriously undermine the claims of the hypothesis.
Which is a meaningless term.
Well evolutionists use it all the time when critiquing rival explanations, like say ID.
Science consists of experimentation. You know the rules. Independently observable and repeatable.
The first synthetic life form is only 14 years old. That was the first time we had enough technology to experiment. They created a brand new single celled life form that doesn't exist in nature. No one has yet created a synthetic multicellular life form. But they will, it's just around the corner.
That is how we gain scientific knowledge. By experimenting. Not by looking at fossils.
But the fossils have to have an explanation, one cannot rely on them as evidence when they fit the expectations yet set them aside when they don't. We have great repeatability with Cambrian fossils, they are found all over the earth and more or less the same forms are found too. Isn't it asking rather a lot to say that the only preserved specimens everywhere we find them, are always at the same point in their evolution and no prior ancestors are ever found?
Look at this :
We find examples of these branch nodes all over the place, Anomalocaris has been found in Wales, Canada, China and Australia, yet no fossil of a credible ancestor is ever found, but the number of generations from that common ancestor to Anomalocaris must have been huge, so there will have been millions of ancestor representing the gradual mutation of that ancestor, so why just that thin tiny slice of time is preserved?
There must have been an Anomalocaris ancestor with poorer less developed vision (16,000 compound cells) but we don't find them, we only find examples of that specific form.
Let's also not overlook the fact that many of the fossil beds where these Cambrians are found also show fossilized jellyfish, amoebas and delicate single celled organisms, that's how
good the conditions were for preservation, but not a sign of any of the ancestors or ancestors ancestors or ancestors ancestors ancestors...
