As mentioned in my original post, I define evolution as biological change over time. I don't know whether evolution has ended.

I don't know what you mean by falsifying evolution.

In the history of evolutionary biology a great deal has been falsified. At present textbooks are pretending that Darwinism explains evolution even though evolutionary biologists have doubts about that. Gould was a major force in the cover-up, even though he himself had declared Darwinism "dead." All this is documented in my book. For a start take a look at the website theendofdarwinism.com

From the irrelevant article that you cited;

"Majerus's study also leaves a long-standing problem unsolved. For reasons that are not clear, the frequencies of dark and light moths do not always correlate with the level of pollution. In East Anglia, for example, dark moths have always been relatively common despite low pollution levels."

Furthermore, dark-colored moths survive in the snowy Arctic.

Donjidra; Next time you ask a question do not include an insult if you want an anser.

Cute name.

I thought if I told you a geologist liked my book you would feel sure that I am not a Young Earth Creationist. No, I do not think people and dinosaurs co-existed, etc.

You can get a better idea of the book by visiting my website theendofdarwinism.com

Yesterday morning I received a long e-mail from an award winning geologist who not only complimented my book but said he "studies it" every night before going to bed. This is not because I know more geology than he, but because he disbelieves in Darwinian theory (prefers symbiogenesis) and enjoys my historical treatment of the subject and the various errors and deceptions involved.
In short, I accept valid scientific findings and I try to find the best authorities. This is not easy. Gould has credibility with the public. But why did he never go outside to see whether moths actually rest on tree trunks during the day? His errors, accomplishments, and ambivalent attitude toward Darwinism are discussed in my book.

There is a reason why the peppered moth experiment has been dropped by most textbooks. Contrary to staged photographs, moths do not voluntarily expose themselves to predation by resting on tree trunks during the day. They prefer to hide. This also explains why Kettlewell's "classic experiment" did not get him into the Royal Society. Although highly praised by Darwinists eager for a scrap; of evidence, the experiment was ridiculous on its face and disproved by observation.

Bye, bye

Biological change is well documented, not evolutionary theory.

Note that Gould says natural selection enjoyed a temporary hegemony in the 1940s and 1960s. Note also:

"we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred."

Egregiously, Gould refers to the peppered moth fraud as evidence of natural selection. That was debunked years earlier though still seen in a few textbooks.

BTW, the quotation given by Donjindra is from a Gould book of 1983. The short quotation that Buchanan took from my book originally appeared in a magazine of 1981. Gould used to take his old writings and make them into books.

A great deal of unjustified abuse has been heaped upon Pat Buchanan because he reviewed favorably my book The End of Darwinism, and I would like to say a few words in his and my defense. (Incidentally, my wife was greatly amused by somebody’s calling me the real “culprit.”)

Those who called Mr. Buchanan an “idiot” or worse probably think of “evolution” as biological change as described by Charles Darwin. The textbooks encourage that mindset. In contrast, the American Paleontological Society is careful to distinguish between evolution as fact, meaning biological change over time, and evolution as theory, meaning an explanation of the change. One can disbelieve in Darwin’s explanation of change while accepting the...