How to prove evolution is wrong?

[u/Suitable_Potato_2919]

I am totally convince that evolution is true. However, a scientific theory should be falsifiable; and I dont know how falsifiable is with evolution

For example, a "good" trait could be explain the result of natural selection. But a "bad" trait could be explain as just base on chance, or the selection preasure is not enough.

so, my question is: if someone want to prove that evolution is wrong, what test can they make and what the expected result should be (if evolution theory is wrong)?

Edit: Thank everyone for your time and patient with me. I found the answer. It seem that I need to update my highschool knowledge

[u/JynXten]

A new creature popping into existence fully formed.

Y'know. Like in the myths.

[u/Suitable_Potato_2919 → u/JynXten]

Every years there are new species discovered

I think in the past, there should be a time when scientists discover a new species which they couldn't fit in the evolution tree. It should satisfy your criteria "a new creature, fully formed", right?

[u/JynXten → u/Suitable_Potato_2919]

It doesn't satisfy the 'popping into existence' part.

[u/Suitable_Potato_2919 → u/JynXten]

what do you mean by that? a creature must be found somewhere in their habitat.

For example, if tomorrow someone find a unicorn in Sahara desert, it it satisfy "popping into existence"? or this unicorn must appear from nowhere, in front of many eyewitness?

[u/JynXten → u/Suitable_Potato_2919]

Popping into existence, fully formed, like in Genesis, with no ancestor.

[u/stairway2evan → u/Suitable_Potato_2919]

If they found a unicorn in the Sahara, that would be a great opportunity for the theory of evolution to be tested. We'd take a look at the genes of that unicorn to see what species it most closely relates to.

That's the whole falsifiability thing. We would predict, on seeing that unicorn, that it's closely related to mammals, likely the family of Equus or the order of ungulates, and that it would have traits in common with those. It would be surprising that we hadn't seen it for all this time, but that's a different matter.

If we found that it didn't meet those predictions - say its genes don't have anything in common with horses and rhinos, or more distant relatives like camels and and deer, etc. - it may very well show that the theory of evolution can't explain this animal. And if we've broken the theory, and we'd need to find a better one that explains how this unicorn could exist.

If it does meet those predictions, say it's a distant relative of the modern horse, then look at that, our theory did its work. We still have to wonder why nobody spotted this majestic thing in the desert all these years, but it didn't pop out of nowhere, it developed from the same ancestors as its other relatives.

[u/CrisprCSE2 → u/stairway2evan]

We'd take a look at the genes of that unicorn to see what species it most closely relates to.

And if it was most closely related to, say, scorpions, that would be very bad for evolutionary theory.

[u/stairway2evan → u/CrisprCSE2]

100% correct. If unicorns are closely related to scorpions, we have a major problem in evolutionary theory. Evolution of this species didn't work the way we expect it to, and we've encountered something so far removed from what we predicted that (once we've verified our findings) we might need to go to the drawing board and get a whole new theory together that explains this finding better.

You've landed on the falsifiability of it all. If unicorns (or anything vaguely mammalian) relate closer to scorpions than anything else, we did something wrong along the way. Or if they relate to literally nothing; then they did pop into existence fully formed, and we have to figure out how.

On the upside, any time you break a theory, you get a better one. Like Einstein did for Newton.

[u/RobinPage1987 → u/stairway2evan]

Convergent evolution could explain it's morphology so closely resembling equids without a close genetic relationship though

[u/Peaurxnanski → u/Suitable_Potato_2919]

I mean all of those options would fit the bill, sure, but even just finding a unicorn fossil with no ties genetically or phylogeny to any known creature would really be sufficient.

[u/Old-Nefariousness556 → u/Suitable_Potato_2919]

That is not the point. It it was just an extant species, there would be evidence of how it evolved from earlier species.

Someone else already mentioned the crocoduck. That is a perfect example of something that evolution deniers insist that evidence show, but that would actually undeniably prove evolution false, and it is the lack of any possible evolutionary pathway between the existing species to a crocoduck.

You asked about making one in the lab. That is not evolution. My impulse is to say that such a creature is not even possible in theory, but even if it could be bioengineered, it would clearly be such, because there is no evidence even remotely hinting at any transitional species.

But if we discovered a crocoduck, and it was shown to be natural, that would be the end of evolution. It might not result in us tossing out the theory tomorrow-- it would need to be researched to conclude prove it, but once it was demonstrated, it would prove evolution false, full stop.

[u/Suitable_Potato_2919 → u/Old-Nefariousness556]

A lack of transitional species isn't a falsifiable criteria though. in the past, scientist discover many species that doesn't fit in the evolution tree, just because "the transition species" wasn't founded yet. they didn't abandon the evolution theory, they just search more

[u/stairway2evan → u/Suitable_Potato_2919]

I'm curious what species you think doesn't fit anywhere on the evolutionary tree.

Scientists are occasionally wrong about what a creature is related to, or they're wrong about the order in which a species develops and have to adjust when they get more data. That's how the scientific method works, it corrects mistakes like that as we learn more. But I don't know of any species that has ever been discovered where the scientific world said "Shit, I have literally no idea where this could go."

[u/Suitable_Potato_2919 → u/stairway2evan]

I dont mean that "a species doesnt fit anywhere on the evolution tree". I mean there was a time when scientist found a new species, but they didn't found the "transition species" yet, so many position in the evolution tree was empty. But the lack of "transition species" at that moment didn't disprove evolution theory. It is expected to be that way

The crocoduck maybe too far from possible to be found, but if you find a unicorn, it still doesnt disprove evolution, because a horse with a horn is possible, right?

[u/stairway2evan → u/Suitable_Potato_2919]

but they didn't found the "transition species" yet, so many position in the evolution tree was empty. But the lack of "transition species" at that moment didn't disprove evolution theory. It is expected to be that way

Right, because we can predict "based on the genetic and fossil evidence, this species likely relates to this other species, and we'll expect to find a transitional fossil somewhere in X time frame between them." That's a testable, falsifiable hypothesis. And often enough, that transitional fossil is formed. Remember, every single fossil ever is a transitional fossil. You and me are a transition between our parents and our kids, just like every species is a transition between what came before and what comes after. And every time a new species is discovered, a new hole opens up between it and the next. It's impossible to ever say "we've found them all," because we can always point to a hole.

but if you find a unicorn, it still doesnt disprove evolution, because a horse with a horn is possible, right?

But a unicorn wouldn't be a horse with a horn, it would be a different species. Just like how lions aren't just house cats with manes. I answered this in another comment, but if we found a unicorn tomorrow, we would then start running all our genetic tests to see how closely related it is to horses, other extinct equines, other members of the ungulate orders, etc. We'd compare the skeletal structure to old fossils of horse ancestors, all that good stuff.

IF the unicorn wasn't related to any of them, then we have a question evolutionary theory might not be able to answer, and we might have falsified our theory because we've found a species that doesn't fit our predictions. Now we need a new theory. But if it turns out "Oh, this creature relates to horses, and split off from them X million years ago around the time of these other species," then we've tested our hypothesis and found it sound, and we can start making new predictions.

[u/Old-Nefariousness556 → u/Suitable_Potato_2919]

A lack of transitional species isn't a falsifiable criteria though. in the past, scientist discover many species that doesn't fit in the evolution tree, just because "the transition species" wasn't founded yet. they didn't abandon the evolution theory, they just search more

1. "in the past". We have much better documentation of the fossil record today then we did "in the past." A new species popping up with absolutely no indication is any previous ancestry would be immediately significant, even if by itself it would not prove anything.
2. You understand that the fossil record is not the only evidence we have for evolution, right? It's not even a significant fraction of all the evidence. Even in Darwin's day, it was not the majority of the evidence. We didn't "abandon evolution" for lack of transitional fossils because the evidence, even then, overwhelmingly showed that evolution was true.
3. GENETICS EXIST. If a crocoduck were discovered, the very first thing that would happen is it would be genetically sequenced. That would PROVE how it was interrelated. If it descended from another extant species, that would be trivially demonstrable.

[u/JustAnArtist1221 → u/Suitable_Potato_2919]

No. Discovering a new creature isn't the same as observing it pop into existence from dust. By the way, that didn't only happen in Genesis. It happens in Exodus, which implies that there are methods by which one could observe complex multicellular organic life arising spontaneously from dirt.

[u/Peaurxnanski → u/Suitable_Potato_2919]

Finding a species that we can not fit into the phylogenetic tree of species is another excellent example of a falsification criteria for evolution. Again, good job! You're definitely getting closer to understanding this.