Under what condition would evolution be disproved?

Question

Clarification: I refer to Darwinian evolution as defined by the National Academy of Science.

Clarification: I refer to Darwinian evolution as defined by the National Academy of Science.

This is a science question. I'm searching for scientific answers, only. Thank you.

Answer 1

i would say you'd have to show some multicelled lifeform which sprouted from nothing.

Answer 2

I went to the National Academy of Science website and didn't find a glossary and in a word search I didn't find the NAS's definition of evolution. If you have their definition it would help me seriously answer your question.

Thanks,

Mark


First, because of the semantics around the word "evolution" it has to be defined first. There is much confusion between evolution on the microscale at the specie level versus evolution on the macroscale above the specie level particularly around the phylum and class level.

Once past the definition of evolution then to truly test the macroscale level of evolution the scientific method would require a time scale of millions of years in order to prove or disprove that fish did or can evolve into amphibians, that amphibians evolved into reptiles, that reptiles evolved into birds, etc.

Since humans cannot apply the proper time scale required to truly apply the scientific method to test macro evolution, then the theory of evolution as a whole is truly nothing more than an untested hypothesis, but a part of evolution at the micro level of evolution within the time scale of humans has been tested and has past the rigorus requirements of the scientific method.

In Conclusion: Marco Evolution is nothing more than a hypothesis on the same level as the hypothesis of creation and micro evolution is a "scientific" fact.

This is the scientific truth according to the limits of the scientific method.

Answer 3

Come on guys, if you are still trying to disprove evolution, you are wasting your time. First, it's the best thing going. Second, the theory isn't perfect, so just because you found something that evolution couldn't explain at moment, it necessarily does not disprove evolution.

You could disprove it if the Lord God appeared in all his glory at an important scientific convention that was televised and told the participants that it wasn't true and then proceeded to rain fire and brimstone on the participants, crack open the floor, and swallow them all up. That would sure as hell convince me.

Answer 4

If we were inhabitted by a life form similar to us that told us we were created from them. We would have to believe them... Other than that, there are plenty of things that try to disprove evolution. But the question you should have is

"Under what condition would a falling apple disprove gravity?"

Answer 5

I am assuming you are referring to Darwinism. Evolution in itself is a process that exists and we have evidence of plants evolving, bugs, etc. You can't really disprove evolution because we have evidence it exists. It is a way that an organism adapts to the environment, usually in a positive way.

Sickle Cell Anemia is a good example in humans of evolution. There is speculation that it evolved from the body's natural defense against Malaria.

Answer 6

"Evolution" could only be disproved by the appearance of an entity that could, first hand, explain how HE (or SHE- or IT) accomplished it ALL by some other means. The fact that some other human at some other time in history wrote down an accounting made by some other human from an earlier time who is "said-to-have-been" provided such an accounting by another SOMEONE who claimed to be related to the entity that actually accomplished the feat cannot be considered any kind of PROOF! a proof would need a first-hand accounting!

Answer 7

How about this: Evolution says "All life came from the sea" then evolution says that creatures like Whales were land animals that moved to live in the sea. Wouldn't that be de-evolution? Just my two cents.

Answer 8

It won't, in actuality, so don't get your hopes up.

In theory-

Had DNA anaysis shown that no species bore any DNA relationship to any other

Had carbon dating shown that all species arose at the very same time

Had there been no examples of partial or less-than-perfect adaptations in species

Had carbon dating shown that all life arose 6000 years ago

Answer 9

when God Himself tells me different.