on evolution

So, I'm in this biodiversity class, right? Anyway, we were discussing the differences between science and religion, truth and dogma. And he mentioned how hypotheses have to be falsifiable. A good theory is a useful model of a problem, which is only valid until it is falsified.

So I raised my hand and asked the question: Must every theory be falsifiable?

Yes, he said.

Then, I asked, how does one falsify the theory of evolution?

Whispers suddenly erupted across the classroom. I think I asked a question I'm not supposed to ask.
~~~~

I believe in evolution. I do. It would be ridiculous not to. But you know what really is ridiculous? To take the obvious truth of evolution, and twist it into evolution of the species. There is no evidence at all for evolution of the species. Birds with different beak shapes? Yes. Birds that turn into muskrats? Not so much.

I mean, look at it. Look at the timeline. You have the Hadean era--4.6 billion years ago to 3.8 billion years ago--during which there was no life. From there we move to the Archaen era, where we see fossilized cyanobacteria. Guys, that's like algae. Proterozoic era, we get the first eukaryotes, worm burrows, early arthropods, and like shell things.

And then you have the Cambrian Explosion. In an amazingly short amount of time compared to the other eras, every phyla we now enjoy and even some others now extinct appeared. Every one. What's up with that? One moment, there's just a couple of single-celled organisms and worms, and then the next day, there's an Earthful of every type of being imaginable except for people. What's even up?

The only answer Darwinians have to offer is that between the Proterozoic era and the Cambrian Explosion, all animal life must have been strictly soft-tissue (soft tissues rarely fossilize). Yes, yes, that makes a whole lot of sense. One day, all the trilobytes' DNA realized that they were no longer very viable, so they became soft-shelled for a million years, and then BAZAM BAZAM! They unleashed their power and grew legs and shells again and bones and all sorts of fantastic jazz that made them so much more viable in this new Cambrian era!

Um... does anyone else here see a problem with this science?

The Theory of Evolution is amazingly unfalsifiable. Darwin created it that way. In political science, when you propose your theory, you must also enumerate what would have to happen to prove it wrong. There is nothing that can prove evolution wrong. Because (like global warming) every time the evidence stacks up against it, the dogmatic scientists cry out: the model isn't flawed! We just haven't completed the fossil record! And then they make up obviously retarded and complicated "facts" (like the soft-tissue thing) that "prove" the point.

And because no one actually ponders any of this, they never realize how thick the wool is over their eyes.

Anyway. How about Occam's Razor? The idea that science always takes the least complicated theory? Gr, I have class. Laterz, yo.

My colleagues always bug me because I'm a skeptic when it comes to evolution. Look,