Evolution is a true scientific theory. It can be falsified by particular findings, such as a hominid skeleton dated to the Jurassic Era.
So if I can cite such an anomaly the whole theory of evolution collapses and you'd change everything you just wrote?
Somehow I doubt it because most Darwinian arguments are not falsifiable. For exampple, a Darwinian argument: "If you could show me an organism which I cannot imagine coming about in a series of gradual steps then my theory absolutely breaks down. Naturally I can always imagine things, therefore my theory is validated." When people can cite their own imaginations as the equivalent of empirical evidence the "evidence" will seem to be overwhelming, yet in fact it isn't.
With respect to actual evidence, so if such a fossil was already found you would admit that "evolution" as you specified it is falsified? I.e. "...all present life on Earth derives from a common 3.5-billion-year-old ancestor, and that living things change slowly through a random process of genetic mutation coupled with natural selection." is false?
Falsifiability is an illusion in the Darwinian mind so it will begin imagining things based on its own hypothetical goo instead of dealing with actual empirical evidence.
Actually, my fandom of the movie is based on Stein's weird, cool monotone . . . sorry about the misunderstanding!
Commenting by HaloScan
