Also this in point one.
Natural selection is the Achilles heel of Darwinism. Darwin saw Malthus’ population theory as the basis NS. This has never been established scientifically and I would submit is dead WRONG. Nonetheless Dawkins still supports Malthusism and many scientists are trying to demonstrate how conflict might lead to cooperation.

There is a long history of dualistic thinking where change is generated by conflict, Being vs Non-Being, (which does not rally work either,) so maybe we should not be too hard on Darwinism. However Darwinism is supposed to be science, which means that it is supposed to be based on scientific evidence, that is experimentation and/or observation. Darwinian NS has none of this.

The result of the failure of Darwinian NS as a system leads multiple concepts of how it works, so evolution as it now stands is not a Theory, but a family of concepts, none of which are acceptable. My own theory for why evolution is so messy is based on a nondualistic, nonlinear understanding of Reality which goes against monististic, linear scientism. See my book, DARWIN’S MYTH.
Roger A. Sawtelle

The point of this is to show that evolution shows itself to be valid, yet is in fact based on flaws and assumptions, it is not a definite answer but rather leads to more questions. As more questions arise, more assumptions are made and the theory is "tweaked". ADAPTATION is FACT, it can be seen, we as people do it all the time...i.e. the example blank_cd gave about winter and jackets....but because i put on a jacket to escape the cold...does not mean i changed at a cellular or genetic level.