Question about evolution.

[_Mad Viking]

The evidence seems to be stacked heavily in favor of evolution being the manner in which life has developed on our planet. I was listening to a debate about evolution vs creationism last night and the creationist was attempting to paint evolution as a religion. Obviously, the evolutionist protested via the rigorous history that evolutionary theory has endured. It did make me wonder about what evidence would have falsified evolution. For evolution to be a scientific theory it must be falsifiable. However, I am unclear, or do not understand evolution enough to posit what scientific evidence would actually have falsified the theory. Any evolution experts help me out here?

[_The Dude]

It's pretty funny when a creationist says evolution can't be falsified, when most of what creationists do is claim that evolution has already been falsified by everything from irreducible complexity to thermodynamics.

[_Dwight Frye]

"Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian." - J.B.S. Haldane

[_The Nehor]

Aren't there two questions here? The first would be falsifiable by showing that biologically organisms can not evolve from one to another.

The other is a historical question. Can you falsify the idea that organisms did in fact evolve using this biological process? This question is shakier but I think it is possible though I'm not qualified to lay out conditions.

[_Mad Viking]

"Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian." - J.B.S. Haldane

Now that you have pointed it out, it seems so simple.

[_Some Schmo]

You might be interested in viewing THIS.

[_Home Teacher]

This is easy. Evolution is only a theory. This is why it is called "The Theory of Evolution." The way to falsify this "theory" is to come up with a different theory called "The Theory that Evolution is False."

[_Mad Viking]

This is easy. Evolution is only a theory. This is why it is called "The Theory of Evolution." The way to falsify this "theory" is to come up with a different theory called "The Theory that Evolution is False."

You're joking... right?

[_cinepro]

TalkOrigins has some excellent resources on evolution and falsification:

Back to evolution. It becomes clear why the simple-minded parroting, even by scientists, that if it can't be falsified it isn't science, is not sufficient to rule out a theory. What science actually is, is a matter for extreme debate. The rediscovery post-Merton of the social nature of science has thrown eternal Scientific Methods out the window, but that doesn't mean that science is no longer distinguishable from non-science. It just isn't as easy as one would like in an ideal world. Last I looked, it wasn't an ideal world, anyway.

However, on the ordinary understanding of falsification, Darwinian evolution can be falsified. What's more, it can be verified in a non-deductive sort of way. Whewell was right in the sense that you can show the relative validity of a theory if it pans out enough, and Popper had a similar notion, called 'verisimilitude'. What scientists do, or even what they say they do, is in the end very little affected by a priori philosophical prescriptions. Darwin was right to take the approach he did.

It is significant that, although it is often claimed that Darwinism is unfalsifiable, many of the things Darwin said have in fact been falsified. Many of his assertions of fact have been revised or denied, many of his mechanisms rejected or modified even by his strongest supporters (e.g., by Mayr, Gould, Lewontin, and Dawkins), and he would find it hard to recognise some versions of modern selection theory as his natural selection theory. This is exactly what a student of the history of science would expect. Science moves on, and if a theory doesn't, that is strong prima facie evidence it actually is a metaphysical belief. [note 4]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/falsify.html

In addition, they list 29+ strong evidences for evolution on this page, and each one includes its potential falsification (or what would be expected if the theory were false).

[_Some Schmo]

This is easy. Evolution is only a theory. This is why it is called "The Theory of Evolution." The way to falsify this "theory" is to come up with a different theory called "The Theory that Evolution is False."

You're joking... right?

It never ceases to amaze me how anti-evolutionists (intentionally?) use the words "theory" and "hypothesis" as though they are interchangeable. There's clearly no point trying to explain evolution to them if they can't even wrap their brains around that.