Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution

That's because those are not a part of the theory of evolution.Different field entirely.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

If this is the case, it will be because the new evidence provides a better understanding of evolution.That's the way science progresses.Nothing in this process should be of any comfort to creationists because none of this new evidence is supporting their beliefs. Too many of them have focused on Darwin; for 150 years they have thought that if they could only discredit Darwin everything he wrote would just disappear.Those folks have 150 years of catching up to do.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Most osteology labs have skulls of the various primates, as well as the prehistoric specimens.When I was learning osteology we routinely examined existing and extinct primates, including a lot of specimens of fossil man.Why do you assume that scientists have never thought of this type of comparison?It is the kind of study that is started in beginning osteology courses (in Anthropology, not necessarily the medical fields). Folks who specialize in fossil man become real experts in these various primates and their ancestors.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

There are a number of websites that you can access that sell replicas of most skulls and the important paleontological finds.Try this one for a start:Bone Clones, Inc. - Osteological ReproductionsThey have an extensive collection of skulls and other bones. But you can't just look at the pictures. To learn about these specimens you have to do some detailed study, and really you would need to study under an expert. Two years of concentrated effort should be good for a start. (I did six years in grad school, half time, studying osteology and evolution and closely related fields.)Edited by Coyote, : Change title

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Based on your post, I would change that to: "Creationists just do not know enough yet to make any solid determination regarding mutations."

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

And perhaps you as a creationist should realize that this "fine tuning or even major adjustments" will most likely only make the theory of evolution stronger.It will not be evidence of creationism; it will be the opposite.Edited by Coyote, : Change title

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

The evidence so far has been toward an increasingly accurate theory of evolution and away from reliance on ancient tribal superstitions.Can you live with that?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Taq noted that "Epigenetics can not explain the morphological and physiological differences between species."Somehow you twisted that to "if epigenetics is not a factor, what specific mutations in the germ cells would modify the offspring to create a new generation of slightly different appearance from their parents?"Are you aware of the vast difference between his statement and your interpretation of it?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.