What are some of the falsafiable theories behind evolution?

Question

What do evolutionists say that, if discovered, would prove evolution to be false?
The only one I know of is if we can prove the earth is not billions of years old, then evolution has to be false.
What are some others?

The only one that really understood what I was asking was rhsaunders.

In order for a theory to be a theory, it has to be falsafiable.
In otherwords if we find...then the theory has to be thrown out. Like the example of age that I gave.
I think that Darwin said in his book that if intermediate life forms are not discovered, then the theory has to be thrown out. (However don't quote me on that) I'm just trying to give an example, because none of you answered the question.

What are the falsafiable statements of evolution theory?
Rh,
I would agree that those processes are necessary for evolution, but they don't prove the theory to be true. However, that's off topic and unrelated to my question.

RH,
I do have some compelling material that supports a young earth if you're interested in hearing it.

Actually, I would like an evolutionist to listen to it and provide their opinion. Every one so far just dismisses any evidence before listening to what people have to say. I find that rather disturbing. It's as if they don't want to hear any other posibilities.

I have been listening to the two major sides for a while. I've tried to get all the information I can from each. I feel it's the only way to get an education. Otherwise, you are subjecting yourself to indoctrination.

But, let me know if you would like a link to the material I have. I need an opinion from an evolutionist on it. A creationist will automatically agree and I need objectivity.

I tried to contact you but the link said your email is not confirmed.

If anyone else is willing to provide me with intelligent objectivity to my material, I will provide it. Just contact me.

Answer 1

There are only two elements required for evolution to be true:
- There must be variation. This is established; essentially every commercially important plant or animal is a variant of the original wild type, in some cases to the extent that the variant is no longer cross-fertile with the wild type -- i.e., it is a new species.
- There must be a selection mechanism. Natural selection has been around since things began; artificial (human) selection has been around since the beginning of agriculture.
Refutation of either of these would, of course, make evolution impossible. Since no other elements are required for evolution to take place, these are the only concepts to which refutation applies. You are, of course, right about the necessary age of the earth; if the earth were young, evolution would not have had time to produce the variety of life now present. But there is no evidence to support such a notion.
My hat is off to you for asking the right question.

Answer 2

I am not sure if or how the age factor would effect the theory. The way to prove the theory false is to know it well enough to be able to use it to make a prediction and demonstrate that the prediction is false in a repeatable experiment. The original theory as put forward by Darwin had a lot of problems that he was himself aware of and at the time were unsolvable. He did not have a way to figure out genetics and how the traits were passed down. It was Mendel in 1866 who published the answer to that. The problem so far is that all of the predictions made by evolution theory that have been tested have been found to be true.
If you can discover a prediction and show a negative result to that prediction you will be cheered immensely and might even become famous. There are large awards for this, the Nobel prize is only one. Good luck in your attempts.

Answer 3

Don't dismiss people who have studied science for years because they do not align with your prejudices and opinions.

All aspects of evolution are falsifiable, because it is a scientific theory. They are exceedingly unlikely to be false, however, because of the exceptionally large body of supporting evidence. This means that no one observation now could conceivably overturn the theory, but it could cause refinement.

Young earth theories, on the other hand, require changes to the very basics of our understanding of the whole of science, from the most fundamental principles upwards (i.e. the very basics of quantum theory). These are the most accurate theories that have ever existed in the history of manking, so it is staggeringly unlikely that they are wrong. It is more likely that god is a piece of cheese on the end of a pygmy shrews nose.

Answer 4

Viruses like HIV would have to stop mutating or evolving. Since, mutation is one of the mechanisms of bioogical evolution.Viruses and bacteria constantly mutate and evolve. So far evolution and mutation have not taken a break for someones religous beliefs. The American Astronomer & biologist Carl Sagan wrote; " Evolution has forever to get it right " Something like that. I see it like this; Evolution is the greatest engineer. But, because evolution has no human face. It's not easy to accept by some humans. Who want to believe in Dieties with faces,intellignece,planning and peronalities. Somehting in our own immage. Like a personal god in our own immage who created a being in his own immage. Im not saying that there was no intelligence behind what has unfolded after the Big Bang. Never say Never,right.

Answer 5

Evolution is fact. It's backed up by literally thousands of individual pieces of knowledge that all fit the model of evolution. Minor details to the evolutionary model are always in question, but nothing can change the basic model. The only thing that would prove evolution to be false, would be the appearance of god in person. That would have to include the execution of some really big miracles to prove that he is who he says he is. In other words, until the Rapture happens, Evolution will never be proven wrong. But that is never going to happen.

Answer 6

Evolutionary biologists passionately debate diverse topics: how speciation happens, the rates of evolutionary change, the ancestral relationships of birds and dinosaurs, whether Neandertals were a species apart from modern humans, and much more. These disputes are like those found in all other branches of science. Acceptance of evolution as a factual occurrence and a guiding principle is nonetheless universal in biology. Unfortunately, dishonest creationists have shown a willingness to take scientists’ comments out of context to exaggerate and distort the disagreements. Anyone acquainted with the works of paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University knows that in addition to co-authoring the punctuated-equilibrium model, Gould was one of the most eloquent defenders and articulators of evolution. (Punctuated equilibrium explains patterns in the fossil record by suggesting that most evolutionary changes occur within geologically brief intervals which may nonetheless amount to hundreds of generations.) Yet creationists delight in dissecting out phrases from Gould’s voluminous prose to make him sound as though he had doubted evolution, and they present punctuated equilibrium as though it allows new species to materialize overnight or birds to be born from reptile eggs. When confronted with a quotation from a scientific authority that seems to question evolution, insist on seeing the statement in context. Almost invariably, the attack on evolution will prove illusory.

Answer 7

if all adaptions are to move the creature up in the food chain or to improve the secies why did some mammals go back to the sea and live there like the dolphins or porpoises or the whales ot the seals and so on isnt a chain back into the water a step back from the future unless we are odd for developing legs and arms and should devolve back to a fish like critter

Answer 8

Before answering, I checked some of your previous questions. If you want to avoid being entirely idiotic, go and read anything by Richard Dawkins.

Answer 9

Let's try the large fish that was caught off Africa a few years ago. It has been extinct for more than a few million years. It was found in a fossilized form and all conclusions were based on that finding. Yet, when this fish was caught, there were no physical changes from that fossilized form from previous years. Surely there should have been some evolutionalry changes in all that time.

Answer 10

I think it would be much easier to answer the question " what are the falsifiable theories behind Faith" ?
the answer there would be "every theory"