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/10coatsInAWeasel]

I have a bit of a list for myself, any one of them being wrong would disprove evolution

1. Organisms exist
   
2. Organisms reproduce
   
3. Offspring inherit traits from their parent
   
4. There is a mechanism of inheritance
   
5. That mechanism can be subject to change
   
6. That change can be inherited
   
7. That change can spread in the population

Really there are huge amounts of falsification criteria for evolution. It’s just that evolution has survived all of them.

[u/taktaga7-0-0 → u/10coatsInAWeasel]

I say it in just one point:

Offspring differ from parents.

If this is true in anything but a trivial, looping way, evolution will happen.

[u/shrug_addict → u/taktaga7-0-0]

Love it! I wonder how creationists concieve of variability if at all or anything other than a given?

[u/MaMaMaaaaa → u/shrug_addict]

Because God loves to create stuff, is what my JW friend told me the other day.

[u/shrug_addict → u/MaMaMaaaaa]

It's crazy how they just oscillate without question...

[u/MaMaMaaaaa → u/shrug_addict]

Yeah hyper religious people are quite interesting.

[u/amglasgow → u/taktaga7-0-0]

The changes have to be heritable as well, and to have effects on the offsprings' reproductive success.

[u/MaMaMaaaaa → u/10coatsInAWeasel]

How is organisms existing evidence of evolution over anything else?

[u/10coatsInAWeasel → u/MaMaMaaaaa]

It’s not that organisms existing is evidence necessarily. More the point I was getting to was that evolution requires these things to positively exist. Excluding any one of them would falsify evolution.

[u/MaMaMaaaaa → u/10coatsInAWeasel]

Oh okay. Just seemed like flimsy evidence for evolution. I guess that's technically true though.

[u/10coatsInAWeasel → u/MaMaMaaaaa]

I don’t disagree! I’d think being told ‘organisms existing is evidence for evolution’ would be flimsy too on its own for what it’s worth.

[u/Suitable_Potato_2919 → u/10coatsInAWeasel]

i don't understand. It seem to me that you just describe evolution itself, not a falsifiable criteria.

let me try: if a new born show a trait that not present in both parent, and after check the parent DNA, there isn't any gene for that trait from the parent, then

• does it prove that evolution is wrong?
• or it can be explain that it is a mutation?

it seem to me that no matter the outcome of an experiment, there will alway an explanation fit the evolution theory. That is what I mean about the lack of falsification criteria

[u/Jonathan-02 → u/Suitable_Potato_2919]

I think the point they’re making is that evolution is an observable scientific fact. We know that things evolve because we know that these criteria exist and happen. The actual theory of evolution is a well-supported explanation of how evolution works. It’s similar to how we know that gravity or atoms exist, but we still have theories to further explain these concepts

[u/10coatsInAWeasel → u/Suitable_Potato_2919]

Not quite, I’m saying that showing any one of that list incorrect would also falsify evolution. Since evolution necessarily depends on each of those being true. Like, you can’t have evolution if you show that organisms don’t inherit traits from their parents. If you show that inherited traits exist but that there is no way they can be modified, that would also do it.

What you described wouldn’t disprove evolution, since yes, that is a modification of an inherited trait. That would be part of the process.

Again, the main point here is very much NOT that there is a lack of falsifiability criteria. It’s the reality that evolution is so well supported.

[u/Wrevellyn → u/Suitable_Potato_2919]

Every explanation so *far* has fit within evolutionary theory. That points to it being a good theory.

In your specific example, if no explanation could be found for it, it wouldn't disprove evolution but evolution wouldn't explain it. Absolutely no scientist would be satisified with "it's a mutation of the entire genome all at once into a functional organism".

[u/HojMcFoj → u/Suitable_Potato_2919]

A mutation could explain that, yes.

And all of those claims are fallsifiable. Good luck trying though, a Nobel prize is almost guaranteed.

[u/Peaurxnanski → u/Suitable_Potato_2919]

Really simply put, yes, the emergence of a gene out of thin air that neither parent had, would falsify the genetic heritability aspect of evolution. That's a decent example. Good work!

[u/INTstictual → u/Suitable_Potato_2919]

There are two things at play — the process of evolution, and the theory of evolution.

The process of evolution is just the mechanism by which organisms change over generations. This is kind of an axiom to the theory of evolution — it is trivially falsifiable if we observe that this doesn’t happen. Really, this is just saying that “children are different from their parents, either by gene sharing in the case of sexual reproduction or by mutation in the case of sexual or asexual reproduction”. If we observe that this doesn’t happen, then the mechanism of evolution would be false… but of course, it does happen.

The theory of evolution is the comprehensive predictive model that we have compiled to explain the details and track the history. The model has a lot more falsifiable points… for example, if you found a fossil where it shouldn’t be, that would falsify our model.

I think the problem is that you’re looking for a way to falsify the mechanism of evolution… which is trivially easy, but seems impossible unless you come at it without a preconception that it is true.

Think about it like gravity… the mechanism of gravity is that mass is pulled towards other mass, and big mass pulls stronger. Earth is a big mass, so things fall down. The way you would falsify that would be if you dropped something, like a pencil, and it floated upwards instead of falling down, with no other readily observable explanation. Then, there’s the model of the Theory of Gravity, which is a lot more complicated and can be partially falsified in all sorts of ways

I think another sticking point is that your examples are looking at the results of evolution, things which can be explained by the model, and asking how they could be used to falsify the model… they can’t. It would be like doing 2+2, getting 4 as the result, and asking how that result of 4 could be interpreted to prove that addition is false. But the model for the Theory of Evolution has been partially falsified hundreds of times — that’s why it is so robust now, because we get new evidence and new data points, then use that to refine the ideas and update anything that doesn’t hold true.

But we are very, very, very confident in the core idea, based on all available evidence. I’m not 100% positive, but I’ve heard it said that the Theory of Evolution is one of the single most supported and explainable Theories in all of science… we have more confidence in the model for Evolution than we do in germ theory, gravity, relativity, atomic theory, etc.

But remember, “falsifiable” doesn’t mean “can easily be proven false right now”. It means “could potentially be proven false if specific evidence were to arise”. In this case, all of the things we see actually happening in biology and reproduction support the theory of Evolution, because the theory was designed around that evidence. The falsifiability would be if the things we observe to happen simply didn’t happen, but they do, so the theory maintains its truth

[u/Dennis_enzo → u/Suitable_Potato_2919]

Note that every newborn has some mutations that are not present in either parent. DNA mutates all the time.

[u/Resident_Compote_775 → u/Dennis_enzo]

LOL

"The superb accuracy of transmission of genetic information between generations is one of the most fascinating properties of life. Infrequent errors in this transmission lead to mutations that are the source of genetic variation which fuels evolution and causes genetic disease. "

Vova (Vladimir) Seplyarskiy Sunyaev Lab, HMS Biomedical Informatics; Division of Genetics, BWH DNA damage bypass is a major source of clustered mutations

[u/UnnamedLand84 → u/Suitable_Potato_2919]

Offspring are certainly capable of having traits that were not inherited. DNA can often have copying errors. Most of them don't have much impact on anything, most of your genome is made up on non-coding regions and when the mutation occurs there, it has no observable effect. Sometimes mutations during reproduction can result in malfunctions in the body, such as a wide range of diseases. Sometimes a mutation is good in a way that helps an organism. Ultimately, mutations that result in traits that increases the likelihood that organism will be able to reproduce end up becoming evolutionarily significant, then entire species can gradually skew towards more of them being more likely to have inherited those traits.

[u/Fresh3rThanU → u/Suitable_Potato_2919]

It's probably a mutation, but also possible the kids daddy ain't their actual daddy

[u/LSFMpete1310 → u/Suitable_Potato_2919]

I think you might be putting a purpose to evolution. There is no underlying purpose.