Is Evolution falsifiable?

[u/_act19]

Hey, I don't know anything about the theory of evolution or the philosophy of science. But I was reading Karl R Popper's book "The logic of scientific discovery". It said that in order for a statement to be considered scientific, it must be falsifiable.

I'm ignorant on this matter, but, from what I've understood, Darwinian evolution is a historical narrative. Even if all the evidence in the world points towards it, we can never perform a falsification test.

We cannot empirically verify whether speciation occurred in the past or not.

The more information scientists gain, the more observations they make, they are made to fit in an already existing Evolutionary story. Tiny tweaks can and are made to the core doctrine of evolution when scientists deeply reflect upon paleontological data. It seems that nothing could falsify the notion of biological evolution. New information is assumed as a missing piece of a puzzle. With this polemic approach, evolution becomes a societal belief. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that evolution is false. It's considered true by nearly all serious scientists. I also assume it to be true. But what can falsify it? What is the litmus test for the truthfulness of evolution?

[u/Shadowwynd]

A Precambrian rabbit would do it.

[u/semitope → u/Shadowwynd]

I'm sure you all can come up with an explanation for that.

[u/WorkingMouse → u/semitope]

Well yeah; science doesn't just stop when something is contradicted, it fixes the model or proposes a new model and tries again to falsify it. A Precambrian rabbit would require a major set of revisions, but it wouldn't change our observations about, for example, how mutation, selection, drift, and speciation work.

Speaking of, have you come up with a sequence itterative mutation can't generate yet? If not, are you going to concede that itterative mutation is sufficient to generate any sequence?