1) Life evolved from "a few forms" or one (Darwin).
> 2) Humans evolved long after many other species.
> 3) Random mutations create primitive*** new organs. 
> 4) Natural selection leads over time to simple organs becoming complex.
> 5) Natural selection leads over time to new species.
> 6) The fossil record so far confirms/does not confirm the theory. 
> 7) Whatever I've left out (e.g. I would appreciate guidance on the current status of Lamarckism).
> 
> *** ("If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down" (Darwin).) - 1) On Feb. 23rd I posted a DNA finding that suggested multiple starting point for life, a set of bushes rather than a tree - 2) True - 3) Very debatable. - 4) Not proven. Taken by Darwinists on faith - 5)See 4 - 6) No greater scientist than Stephan Jay Gould said it was the 'greatest kept secret of paleontology" that it did not confirm. - 7) Lamarkism is now referred to as epigenetic forces, influences, effects. No question organisms have the ability to push genetic change rapidly if challenged. Area of research started almost 20 years ago with Reznick's guppies. Google him and see the story. - The famous Darwin Quote is the key to much of the debate. But so is another issue. Did life come from outer space. Are there weird life forms that do not conform to our life patterns? Paul Davies raised the questions recently: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090214162626.htm

1) Life evolved from "a few forms" or one (Darwin).
2) Humans evolved long after many other species.
3) Random mutations create primitive*** new organs. 
4) Natural selection leads over time to simple organs becoming complex.
5) Natural selection leads over time to new species.
6) The fossil record so far confirms/does not confirm the theory. 
7) Whatever I've left out (e.g. I would appreciate guidance on the current status of Lamarckism). - I'm not a biologist. For authoritative views on these issues I refer you to your bete noir, the greatest living evolutionist, Richard Dawkins. - In regard to point 3) I think the use of the word "organs" is misleading. For instance would a primitive light-sensitive spot, a precursor of an eye, properly be called an "organ"? It's actual use to guide the behaviour of the creature might come long after its first appearance as a mutation. Organ suggests something with reasonably complex "organ"-isation and serving a definite function. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_(anatomy) - In regard to point 6) insofar as inductive evidence can "confirm" something, the fossil evidence confirms evolution. The philosophers of epistemology, since Popper, however tell us that "falsification" is more important than "confirmation". Haldane pointed out that evolution would be falsified by the discovery of "fossil rabbits in the precambrian": - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_rabbits_in_the_precambrian - and similar anachronisms: - http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Mansion/6172/flintpics/fredcrane.gif - such as human fossils with dinosaurs!

--
GPJ

*** ("If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down" (Darwin).) - This is certainly the heart of the Darwin discussion. I was lead to George's disdained website "Uncommon Descent" because of my own independent reasoning. I had adopted an intelligent design theory before I found those folks. I do not support their Christian agenda with my Jewish background, but they make interesting observations that are not mainstream, but they are thoughtful, and horrors (!), they may be right. My own epistemologic philosophy follows Kuhn as well as Popper. As I have described in past posts I have treated patients with 'unaproved' therapies years ago, successfully, because they were reasonably correct approaches to helping human health. Later my methods became approved. One's own reason should always take precedent over 'mob conclusions.'
With that 'mea culpa' in place please look at this disucssion of monarch butterflies migration of 2,500 miles twice a year from northwest US and Canada to a 60 mile square area in the Sierra Madre mountains of Mexico. They often stop at our place in Texas. We love to see them. The guidance mechanism is biochemical and complicated as elucidated so far. The arguments presented in the article point out the 'wishful thinking' explanations of Darwinist scientists of the gaps in knowledge by assuming how those gaps 'must' be filled to fit a Darwin Theory. Science is not built on expectation but the establishment of fact. Facts occasionally change underlying paradigms. (Kuhn). See the March 1st entry: http://www.uncommondescent.com/