You won't believe how much evolution theory changes. (evolves) It's the only thing they have ever proven to have evolved!
In this blog I will give some examples of just how much of a story this really is, rather than genuine science and you will see from the actual science facts, that there is no evolution in any of them.
Darwin at first thought cells were a simple blob of protoplasm. They turned out to be cities of complexity, with a DNA quarternary code, and many chicken-and-egg scenarios in place where the systems basically will only work if many parts are all in place to begin with. He also argued that by natural selection alone all of life evolved. (minimum Koonin cell)
Science accepted at that time all life evolved from natural selection alone. However, every evolutionist scientist today would reject that notion. Proving according to deductive reasoning that scientists even if they are in the majority, can be wrong and accept things as true because they believe them to be true. Sure, they may have thought, "there's gaps to be filled in here", but the point is, they accepted evolution even if from their perspective at the time, only the one mechanism of natural selection would ever be discovered.
Darwin suggested a whale perhaps had a bear as an ancestor.
The scientists then used to believe mesonychid ungulates were the ancestors of whales, but they changed that historical story when they looked at genes, and instead argued it was the artiodactyls. They used to believe it was a protein that sprang up in a warm pond with abiogenesis, now they argue the RNA world.
They used to argue that the coelecanth was an intermediate for amphibian evolution until they found a live one. They then changed the story to elpistostegids being the ancestors of tetrapods, but now they have found them to be contemporaneous, so I will quote what an evolution scientist said; "We now have to invent a common ancestor to the tetrapods and elpistostegids.""
In fact Phil Gingerich (whom thought Rhodocetus originally had a tail-fluke in regards to whale-evolution, ended up saying on video iirc, that, "Rhodocetus probably didn't have a tail fluke after all". )
Pakicetus was originally argued to have fin-like exaptations iirc, only now they argue it to be terrestrial. (changed their minds)
As for the evolution of baleen whales, one story is that an ancestor had teeth and baleen. A more recent story is that a "sucking whale" had neither teeth nor baleen and this is how baleen whales evolved instead.
It should be noted here that some whales and bats have echolocation, and the "earliest" versions they find have full echolocation as fully designed systems, with no trace of any evolution of them.
As for the story of bird evolution, that has also been subject to change or difference of opinion as to which story is true. Cursorial versus arboreal theories abounded with bird evolution.
One group thought (and some probably still do), that avian evolution was from a crocodilomorph. A sort of small "relative" of the crocodile if I remember correctly, (but I am rusty on that). The other group thinks the cursorial theory is true, that birds evolved from therapods.
An amusing thing is that objections by each group seems to mutually rule out the other group's claims.
Kind of like if two people that committed a crime together but are now implicating each other, go to war with each other and their accusations towards each other both turn out to be true because both are guilty.
In this case bird evolution is ruled out by the fact both theory's make valid objections toward the other.
They also make no sense because theropod evolution would have birds evolve from lizard-hipped dinosaurs rather than bird-hipped dinosaurs.
We also had ORP. (ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny). I remember in the early 2000s when atheists online would put this at the top of their list of reasons for why they believed evolution is true. Now science has rejected ORP.
At the time they had Haeckel's fraudulent drawings still in textbooks. It would not surprise me if some of those misleading pictures still existed in some but I don't know.
They used to insist the branchial folds in the embryo were "gill slits", because the embryo would have allegedly traced an evolutionary history.
Something that still sounds so absurd you would think it came from a sci-fi film but this is what those on the side of "science and rationalism" fully believed was scientifically true.
They will literally believe any story is evolution, but one thing you will note from this blog is that those stories are destined to always change because macro-evolution never existed.
This is the tip of the iceburg, but I have covered the parts of it that I can remember. There's also geology to consider, which has also changed because they predicted uniformitarianism but neo-catastrophism is arguably now the order of the day. That's because the slow process scenario doesn't fit any more. You have all kinds of evidence that doesn't fit long ages such as paraconformities (flat gaps), planated surfaces, inselburgs (erosional remnants), standing arches, BEDS. (briefly exposed diluvial surfaces). You also have MT ST Helens blowing it's stack and creating a canyon in two days with some of the above features.
Things thought to take a long time no longer do. Desert varnish, oil, sedimentation. Flume experiments show you can get facies form in hydraulic conditions.
I regard the retort, "but science changes with new data", as an absurdly WEAK retort. That is not the real reason why evolution-theory evolved and can't come up with a story they can get straight. The real reason isn't needing new data, the real reason is that the facts don't yield a true evolutionary history. They are looking for a history that is not there which is why there can never be a consistent picture of evolution.
