Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution

[QUOTE]Originally posted by minnemooseus:
[b]This little packet appears all over the place, as the qualities that a valid theory should have.It should have:
1) testable hypotheses[/QUOTE][/b]I will confidently assert that this will be what Newton meant in the unpublished "conclusion" In the PRINCIPIA as to what genetic information could be garnered should electric fish electric wave forms be subjected to classic mendelian analysis (i.e. any genetic hypothesis that would then have to be tested and if confirmed the (the hypothesis) Cohen attempts to interpret Newton's use there of of. [QUOTE][b]
2) confirming evidence [/QUOTE][/b]
If true confirming evidence would be able to go beyond Lerner's concept of population genetics no matter the dispute between Fisher and Wright [QUOTE][b]
3) potential falsifications[/QUOTE][/b]accrue from showing that the overlap of data bases explored data correlations would have had a science with two much mechanics (Newtonina + electromagnetic) for the same geometry BUT DIFFERENT geographies. This would approve then of not making a hypothesis but using one in the process of working FROM Newton's idea to whatever this would be by then.

My suspicion is that the logical difference of series and sequences accounts for the failure to relate phenotypes and possible geographic types. I think this must have been what Wright chastised Provine for in the 80s when I was learning there was more to the nose of an electric fish than Lewontin thought in coupled differential equations of the tail of a snake. I now see that form in molecular realm is where any disproof is going to come from but it needs to be through some development to NAME supramolecular aggregates naturally and not be simply the same issue of any old Behe 'design' no matter the life. I guess I must have missed WK in 2003 here.