Others have noted that the fossils do not show the evidence Darwin postulated
Theories are not set in stone by the author of the theory, they change and improved with new evidence. Just because a fossil doesn't line up with Darwin's original theory does not mean that the theory as a whole is invalited. It's like saying that because your McDonald's hamburger doesn't have pickles on it that pickles don't exist.
and once more adapted the theory with another aspect called punctuated equilibrium.
Theories change with new evidence, that's how science works, Just because someone's name is attached to a theory that doesn't mean that the theory in question must be dogmatically maintained are the first formulated it.
Darwin's theory of evolution is just that, viz, a theory
Then you have no idea what a theory is. In the realms of science the word theory does not mean "A good guess", it's the fucking gold standard, it means the theory has not only withstood scutiny and peer review, but has also made predictions that have been confirmed.
There are laws in science which most, if not all, scientists accept.
Scientific laws are the what, whereas scientific theories are the how and why.
Entropy is evident all around us and we see things do run down Consequently, Darwin's molecule-to-man theory is a contradiction of accepted scientific laws.
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics applies to a closed system, the Earth is not a closed system since it recieves energy from outside from outside it's system (The Sun)
Finally, are we to accept every detail of Darwin's theory, or be selective?
For the last fucking time! Theories are not dogmatic, they are not static, they are not written in stone, a fact which I'm sure you have been made aware of on far more than one occassion, and I'm left with no choice but to think that you are unwillingy to learn anything that does not support your presupposition.
Social Darwinism, as it has been called, I believe, consigns women to an inferior status to men. This is surely unacceptable
The is no theory of "Social Darwinism", nor did Darwin himself formulate anything resembling that. "Social Darwinism" is not part of, or have anything to do with Darwin's Theory of Evolution. You are obviously not familiar with Darwin's theory beyond whatever evolution denial propaganda you are now parroting.
Also natural selection or the survival of the fittest is what we see in our day on the streets
No, it isn't. That would be an example of unnatural selection. Your argument is nothing but strawmen, false assertions, and outright lies.
Why do young people get involved in gangs, carry knives etc if it is not to survive? Many examples which are causing us serious social problems could be given and these relate to Darwin's theory of evolution. So, contrary to reinvigorating the scientific studies, it has created ills in society.
None of that has a single fucking thing to do with evolutionary theory, nothing, nada, zip, zilch, absolutely fuck all. Evolutionary theory is not, nor was it ever a moral code, a worldview, or a social model.
Why don't you actually go and find out just exactly what ideas that Darwin's theory of evolution puts forth before acting like you have this arguement that will just overthrow evolutionary biology, if only the big, bad, evil scientist would stop supressing the poor christians.
Your whole arguement is bollocks. It's flawed in that it is based in arguing against a version of evolutionary theory that doesn't exist.
