>Actually, though some of the so-called "evidence for evolution" has been discredited (notably "Piltdown man"), none of what's been discredited has any bearing on the remaining, vast, foundational evidence that evolution exists or that natural selection can explain it.

What the earlier poster characterized as discredited "evidence for evolution" is no evidence at all. Piltdown man - for example - is frequently cited by Creationists (though not in this thread) to show that evolutionary scientists are not very bright in the first place and then won't acknowledge their blunders when they're exposed.

Some Creationists believe that dinosaur footprints have been found alongside human prints; this supposedly "exposes" the foolishness of geologists, who are too proud, stubborn, and protective of their jobs to admit the "truth." A different sort of case, but the same mistaken principle, namely that "Evolutionary scientists don't know what they're talking about, and cover up their embarrassing blunders."

Piltdown, even when it was thought real, was hardly vital to the general case for the existence of evolution (which is what some Creationists seem to think). And Piltdown was a fraud. Thus the quotation marks and "so-called."

A thoughtful reading of the entire post, I believe, would have cleared up any confusion.