Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution

I know this thread is old but is there anyone who can present evidence that ToE has been falsified (not how it could be, I mean actual evidence that has falsified ToE)?

Damnedest thing, that. Every time someone comes up with a potential (or supposed) falsification it turns out the thing is actually supportive.So, to answer your question: No, not yet. But we keep working at it.The newest "final nail-in-the-coffin" of the TOE about to come charging onto the scene appears to be the development of instinct. Preliminary info seems to indicate this new devastating "nail" is the usual "too complex / incredulous / new 'law' just developed from nothing" mix, though.Still, it could get interesting.

And all too often the proof (as in an unspecified pnt) is based on false information and legend.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

If the topic develops, I have no doubts this is exactly what will be found. But we need to prepare.Sharpen your sword.

There, IMO, are certain topics that arise that leave the door wide open for the creationist/IDist camp. Threads that are just begging for their positive input. Threads that are perfect for them to say "ok, here is the irrefutable evidence that says evolution is false". This seems to be one of them. However, just like the rest of the threads like it, they fall short. They are given golden opportunities to provide solid information in the correct venue where it can be followed up on by both sides, yet fail to provide a damn thing. This particular thread began in 2002 and has seen little more than "just you wait, there WILL be something in the near future that proves evolution to be wrong". Hell, there was even one guy who said he wrote or was writing a fucking book falsifying evolution.Well boys, 8 years has passed. What have you got? The same old PRATT's, that's what.Edited by hooah212002, : sig

---

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

Your call out for valid falsifying evidence from the creation side is absurd - You know it's not going to happen.Down through the theory of evolution history there have been additions and other modifications to the theory. When some detail is found to be lacking, the theory must be modified - I would think of this as a minor falsification and a resulting correction.I think is is more interesting and informative to explore potential falsifications, even though we know many to most are never going to actually happen.MooseEdited by Minnemooseus, : Change subtitle.

This might help:The Theory of Evolution is exactly that, a theory. Yes, the theory can be updated to accommodate recent editions and scientific ideas, and still be the Theory of Evolution, as long as the changes are accepted by the Consensus. If not, the changes can be discarded.
However, it is interesting that Creationism has not changed OR been updated since its original state. This is interesting, seeing as Evolutionists have to update their theory when something new happens. Another thing:
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SCIENTIFICALLY PROVE ANY THEORY OF THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE. Here is why:
There is no way to Observe the origin of the universe, and all science is based on Observation and Experimentation, so the ToE is not really a Scientific theory, but rather it is another scientifically non-provable world religion, with Mother Nature as the Deity!Edited by Michael McBride, : Misspelled wordEdited by Michael McBride, : Misspelled wordEdited by Michael McBride, : Added word for clarification.

First, welcome to EvC.I could use some help understanding your post though.You poted:

quote:

---

Another thing:
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SCIENTIFICALLY PROVE ANY THEORY OF THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE. Here is why:
There is no way to Observe the origin of the universe, and all science is based on Observation and Experimentation, so the ToE is not really a Scientific theory, but rather it is another scientifically non-provable world religion, with Mother Nature as the Deity!

---

What does the origin of the Universe have to do with the Theory of Evolution?Why can't the origin of the Universe be observed?What makes the ToE a religion?What makes you think any Theory is proven?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

What does the origin of the Universe have to do with the Theory of Evolution?My fault, it doesnt mention itWhy can't the origin of the Universe be observed?time travel hasn't been invented yetWhat makes the ToE a religion? it is not founded on any solid scientific evidence, so faith in nature's power to gradually create has to exist.What makes you think any Theory is proven? if a theory has been proven, it is then no longer a theory CIP: Newton's first lawAlso: take a look at the first and second laws of thermodynamicsAnd: pay attention to ndfdn difn teijwfo!

Hi Michael, welcome aboard!Jar is taking the Socratic approach, I'll take the opposite tack. This thread is in the Biological Evolution forum, and the topic of this particular thread is potential falsifications of evolution. Neither has anything to do with cosmology. If you wish to discuss the origin of the universe then you need to find a thread over in the Big Bang and Cosmology forum.You are correct that is impossible to scientifically prove theories, but that's because theories are never proven scientifically. In science when people say prove what they mean supported by sufficient evidence to persuade a consensus. The absence of proof within science is because of the principle of tentativity. All scientific knowledge is open to change in light of new evidence or fresh insights. This process of continuous improvement allows theory to represent our best understanding of the current state of knowledge. Again, wrong forum. Really. What parts of the theory of evolution did not derive from observation and/or experimentation? Again, if by the word prove you mean prove something to be unambiguously and eternally true, then nothing in science is ever proven. But if you instead mean supported by evidence then evolution is well supported.Concerning the topic itself, do you have any potential falsifications of evolution to offer?--Percy

Welcome to EvC! May you find your time here educational and instructive. This is trivially true, simply because it's impossible to prove any scientific theory at all. All of science is tentative, pending the discovery of new evidence or a new explanation that better fits the observed evidence than the old. Newton's Third Law has not been scientifically proven, nor has any law of thermodynamics, nor has the Theory of Evolution. None has and none ever will. There is nothing preventing us from observing the evidence left behind from the origin of the universe and develop scientific theories based on those observations. In the exact same way, there's nothing preventing us from observing the evidence left behind from the history of life on this planet and develop scientific theories based on that evidence.The Theory of Evolution is what science has developed based on the evidence we see about the history of life. It is the best explanation of the evidence we see and has no contradictory evidence. If you disagree, provide a better explanation or produce the contradictory evidence, then claim your Nobel Prize. Yes, and this distinction is one of the (many) facts that shows that the Theory of Evolution is scientific and Creationism isn't. Then I'm sure you can find many examples of biologists who worship Mother Nature. Unless of course you knew this was false when you said it....

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

Hi Michael,If you click on the peek button for any message you can see the actual markup used to format quotes and such. Once you see how it's done it's easy to do it yourself. You can also find detailed documentation over at the dBCode Help Page. Police solve crimes that have no eyewitnesses all the time. Things that have actually happened leave evidence behind. Theories are never proven, including Newton's First Law. All scientific theories are tentative and unproven, no matter how high the mountains of evidence supporting them. We can increase our confidence in a theory by building the mountain of supporting evidence ever higher, but that confidence never achieves certainty. The laws of thermodynamics are as unproven as all other scientific theories. They are supported by copious evidence, but they are not proven. Like all scientific theories they are tentative, which means they are open to change in light of new evidence or improved insights. For example, a few years ago it was discovered that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is not as ironclad at quantum levels as it is at macro levels. It turns out entropy can spontaneously decrease temporarily over short distances and time spans.--Percy

Repeatable observations can be made in the present to determine what's happened in the past. Many branches of science do this. Much of forensic science is concerned with determining what's happened before the time of observation, and much of geology, astronomy, cosmology and biology involves making observations in the present that relate to past events.Scientists know that this is science. Who told you that scientific theories were necessarily considered "provable"? Your preacher?They are considered falsifiable, and this thread is about potential falsifications of evolutionary theory.As for "Mother Nature" being a deity, she lacks the usual qualifications, like being invisible and imaginary.

Okay, so that has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution or how it might be falsified. Is that correct? But things that happened in the past leave behind evidence. Is that correct? What makes you think it is not founded on solid scientific evidence? Why is faith in natures' power to create needed? Did you know that no scientific theory or law is ever proven? All scientific theories and laws are held tentatively. That is in fact why science works. Not sure how that is related. Can you explain it for me?One last thing. What do any of the issues you raise have to do with potential falsification of the Theory of Evolution?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Wrong!
Scientific theories do not grow up to be come laws. Scientific theories and scientific laws are different things.

quote:

---

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena. And, whereas a law is a postulate that forms the foundation of the scientific method, a theory is the end result of that same process.

---

SourceYou might want to read up on the subject a little more before you make your self look even more ridiculous.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts