what you have is a theory which has been repeatedly and overwhelmingly disproved over a period of many decades now via a number of independent lines of reasoning
This statement alone shows the inane logic youve employed to try and deny facts and EVIDENCE. There is NO evidence that disproves (or even questions)evolution.
There is no evidence that disproves evolution, because evolution happens. That is the way all things develop whether its something man makes or God makes. The process is always the same, "complexity is added over time either by constant intelligent input, or by an algorithm of artificial intelligence that was initiated by intelligence at abiogenisis.
Your consistant hobby is to "Quote mine" and its almost felonious. Popper said that evolution IS falsifible by following the predictions that the underlying sciences make.
Words mean things. People will say things like, "nature chose these characteristics by the natural process of evolution." That statement is true nature chose because nature is an algorithm of artificial intelligence programmed to chose.
Nobody will argue that natural selection is not random, and it is not capable of choosing. The question is, "how did matter arrange itself so perfectly in the quantum mechanics of the DNA of the natural world we observe that it can so perfectly add complexity and diversity, by using sequential processes that develop extreme complexity, without any further outside intelligent input?"
For an algorithm, of artificial intelligence capable of developing highly complex organisms, to come into existence by chance without intelligent origination is a possibility, but what is the possibility, and why can't we replicate it?
I think the statistical analysis of the chances of this algorithm arranging itself by chance fulfills Poppers falsifiability requirement because the chances are 1/a very huge number.
wiki on Popper
Logically, no number of positive outcomes at the level of experimental testing can confirm a scientific theory, but a single counterexample is logically decisive; it shows the theory, from which the implication is derived, to be false. To say that a given statement (e.g., the statement of a law of some scientific theory)—call it "T"—is "falsifiable" does not mean that "T" is false. Rather, it means that, if "T" is false, then (in principle), "T" could be shown to be false, by observation or by experiment. Popper's account of the logical asymmetry between verification and falsifiability lies at the heart of his philosophy of science. It also inspired him to take falsifiability as his criterion of demarcation between what is, and is not, genuinely scientific: a theory should be considered scientific if, and only if, it is falsifiable. This led him to attack the claims of both psychoanalysis and contemporary Marxism to scientific status, on the basis that their theories are not falsifiable.
Solving this low probability problem by introducing an infinite number of universes we cannot see, goes against Poppers requirement that a theory be falsifiable to be scientific, because all science does is keep adding (they can be imaginary or real universes, it doesn't matter because we can't observe them) universes to the theory till that ratio of 1/a realy big number becomes manageable.
On the other hand I have argued that today the pattern holds true that all algorithms (order) are created by intelligence or artificial intellignce that was established by real intelligence. Most people agree with that statement. It is scientific. We have not observed order appearing without intelligent guidance but atheists speculate it happened in the past during the esablishment of the algorithm that established the laws of nature.
You keep providing proof through the fossil record that the algorithm of natural selection works. I think gungasnake would agree it works.
Your evidence that supports your theory makes two unfalsifiable assumptions. One is that the initiation of the algorithm of natural selection (artificial intelligence) breaks the pattern we observe today that, "all algorithms of complexity are created by intelligence." It is unfalsifiable because if there is an author to the information stored in the atoms and algorithms of the universe, logically he has to be outside the universe to initiate the organization of the information stored in the universe as it came into existence. That author would fit the characteristics of a person and would have to be searched for using methods that mainstream science is unwilling to use because, the search for a person that initiated the process, is different than a search for an understanding of the process and how it runs. The real person that did it might not be falsifiable if it is true that he or it exists.
Similarly, it is not falsifiable that I created this response, because it is a true fact that I typed it.