Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution

Perhaps extrasolar planets would be a good analogy.We haven't "directly" observed an extrasolar planet to date. What we have observed are stars that wobble quite a bit with no apparent binary star to cause the wobble. We also observe that some stars dim from time to time. Extrasolar planets explain all of these observations really, really well. I think most of us would be absolutely floored if all of these observations were actually caused by something other than extrasolar planets.Such is the case with evolution. We see all of the evidence we should see if evolution is true, right down to the order of bases in DNA. Evolution explains all of these observations really, really well.

The theory of evolution says nothing about the process of fossilization. The theory only states what types of species must have existed, specifically what types of transitionals should have existed. The theory also states what types of transitionals we should NOT see. So if you find a fossil with a mixture of avian and mammalian derived features then you will have falsified the theory.You can only test the theory with the fossils we do have, not with the fossils we don't have. Or we can believe our observations of species making the jump from a single cell to 4 to 32 cells, finally stabilizing at 8 cells in the matter of a geologic eye blink."Boraas (1983) reported the induction of multicellularity in a strain of Chlorella pyrenoidosa (since reclassified as C. vulgaris) by predation. He was growing the unicellular green alga in the first stage of a two stage continuous culture system as for food for a flagellate predator, Ochromonas sp., that was growing in the second stage. Due to the failure of a pump, flagellates washed back into the first stage. Within five days a colonial form of the Chlorella appeared. It rapidly came to dominate the culture. The colony size ranged from 4 cells to 32 cells. Eventually it stabilized at 8 cells. This colonial form has persisted in culture for about a decade. The new form has been keyed out using a number of algal taxonomic keys. They key out now as being in the genus Coelosphaerium, which is in a different family from Chlorella."
Observed Instances of Speciation Falsification is not based on things we have not observed, but on things we HAVE observed. You do know how falsification works, don't you?

The whole point is that Haldane was never able to show that there really is a dilemma. Haldane lacked sequence data, the very thing he was trying to model.Before you ask for solutions to a problem perhaps you should demonstrate that there is a problem to begin with. Sure you have been told about the nylonase gene?
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htmThere is also Hall's EBG (evolved beta-galactosidase):
The EBG system of E. coli: origin and evolution of a novel beta-galactosidase for the metabolism of lactose - PubMedEdited by Taq, : No reason given.

We have also presented the fact that the theory of evolution predicts that those creatures with those particular skulls should have existed if the theory of evolution is true. Therefore, these skulls are evidence for the theory of evolution.Why don't you take your dog and pony show to a court room sometime. You can tell the jury that those fingerprints are not evidence against your client. OH NO, that can't be. Those swirls of oil are just that, swirls of oil. You can conclude what you want from those swirls, but it will be nothing more than your interpretation and not science, right? Yes, a well evidenced and scientific conclusion. That's our point.

The DNA evidence is best explained by a common designer, not a common source. Obviously, the creator of my client also produced the DNA at the crime scene.

How is this any different than using forensic evidence to recreate the commission of a crime that has no eyewitness? How is this any different than matching a suspect's DNA to the crime scene and then figuring out why the suspect did it?

I don't have a problem with the following:"Once we've figured out what evolutionary events have taken place, we try to figure out how they happened."We have figured out that humans and chimps share a common ancestor and that both humans and chimps evolved from that common ancestor. Genetics and the fossil record are clear on this. Now we are trying to figure out the environmental pressures that resulted in the divergence of these two lineages. Don't you agree?

Why does that seem odd? When looking at the fossil record and the history of life on Earth, extinction is the rule, not the exception. When something dies it usually dies on the surface where it is scavenged and disarticulated. Frankly, we are lucky to have the pieces we do have. And we have no problem finding overwhelming evidence of transitional hominid species. Your point?

They are in the same spot as your cousins are with respect to the transtion from your grandparents to you. Why don't we see both Elephants and Wooly Mammoths?

Back to the OP . . .And yet none of these fossil species violate the branching pattern. That is what evidences evolution (and also allows it to be falsifiable). We do not see any bird-mammal transitional fossils that have a mixture of bird and mammal features. What we do see are the transitionals that evolution predicts we should see.Each fossil we find is a test of the theory. The theory of evolution predicts which combinations of features we should see and which we should not. Therefore, the mixture of characteristics in each fossil can be used to test these predictions. On the other hand, creationism/ID makes no such predictions which makes it unfalsifiable. The root is shared characteristics which are called synapomorphies in cladistics. No we don't. We show that all life, both living and dead, fall into a nested hierarchy. That is what evidences evolution. In cladistics no single fossil species is labelled as an ancestor of any living species. All species are linked through shared characteristics which is the synapomorphy.

We know that both gorillas and chimps exist, so why don't we have any fossils of them? Could it be that some areas of been searched more thoroughly for fossils than others? It is much easier to scrape away the dirt in the dry savannas of Africa than it is to dig up rainforest in the Congo, for example. Also, could it be that some environments are also better at producing fossils to begin with?

Indeed, they do. However, the pelvis of these species look much more human than chimp. Overall, they have a mixture of modern human and primitive ape features, exactly what you would expect to find if humans evolved from a common ancestor with chimps.Here is a nice comparison of an Australopithecus pelvis with the pelvis of modern humans and chimps: The Australipithecus pelvis is squattier and wider. On top of that, the femur starts outside the and angles inwards towards the center line just like in humans. Both of these features are indicative of bipedalism like that seen in humans. Compare this to the chimp pelvis that is taller and skinnier with no inward angle for the femur.

You didn't answer my question. Why don't we see both wooly mammoths and elephants living today?As for a frozen humanoid:Otzi:
http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/archaeology/otzi_iceman_2.jpg

Less than 0.1% of scientists with a degree in the biological sciences disagree with evolution:CA111: Scientists reject evolution?I would not call less than 0.1% of scientists "many". On top of that, those who do reject it do so on religious grounds, not scientific. Then what would?

Early settlers in the Americas reported seeing huge flocks of passenger pigeons, so large that it would take hours for the flock to fly over as it dimmed the sun. There is no doubt that there were billions of passenger pigeons when Europeans moved to the Americas. Now there are none. On top of that, we only have a handful of known passenger pigeon fossils. How can this be?