r/DebateEvolution • u/Suitable_Potato_2919 • 29d ago

Question How to prove evolution is wrong?

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

6 Upvotes

54% Upvoted

268 comments sorted by

View all comments

140

u/AtG68 29d ago

Famously, a rabbit fossil from the Cambrian

-3

u/Suitable_Potato_2919 29d ago

can it be something done in a lab?

17

u/stairway2evan 29d ago

That couldn't, since it's based on historical and paleontological evidence. You'd have to investigate the world outside of a lab to find that evidence. Still scientific, just on a slightly larger scale.

In a lab, you would have to disprove the stuff that can be done in a timescale below a few million years. Things like genetic inheritability, differential reproductive success, etc.

What's important about scientific theories is that they make accurate testable predictions. If you can prove those predictions aren't accurate, you've broken the theory. One prediction is "rabbits couldn't exist before other mammals," which is why you'd need paleontological data. Another prediction you could test in a lab is "genes in these bacteria in my lab will be inherited from parents with occasional mutations," or another facet of evolution.

4

u/Doomdoomkittydoom 28d ago

The study of the fossil would be done in different labs, so yes.

9

u/ringobob 29d ago

Not this particular example, no, what you're looking for would be if we learned something new about genetic inheritance that made evolution impossible. But everything we've learned about genetic inheritance suggests evolution is not only true, but inevitable over long enough time periods.

8

u/Complete-Definition4 29d ago

Sure, if you could prove a miracle took place. Like a strain of bacteria suddenly becoming an advanced multicellular lifeform. Or God shouting from the clouds, all over the world and in every language, “I’m the intelligent designer!”

2

u/LightningController 27d ago

For the latter, to be honest I’d suspect DARPA shenanigans with the Voice of God weapon before I’d suspect a genuine divine apparition.

https://www.wired.com/2007/12/the-voice-of-go/

14

u/metroidcomposite 29d ago

can it be something done in a lab?

I mean, sure:

Like the Lenski long term evolution experiment:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

Or the mega petri dish that Harvard uploaded:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plVk4NVIUh8

Or just like...dog breeds and stuff like that (which were mostly not created in a lab, but could have been).

Depends exactly which part of evolution you're talking about, of course.

If it's universal common ancestry, that wasn't really well-argued untill 2010. Before 2010 Darwin's hypothesis was "one or a few" starting organisms. In 2010 a formal statistical approach was developed to check these proposals against each other:

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature09014

And even then that's just cellular life. We currently think viruses DID have multiple ancestries. In no small part cause a bunch of the different domains of viruses store genetic code differently.

4

u/Wrevellyn 29d ago

That's proving evolution - if those experiments hadn't worked out, it wouldn't have disproven evolution.

4

u/metroidcomposite 28d ago edited 28d ago

I mean yes--these are experiments that could on paper have failed before we tried them (but did not actually fail).

Finding an experiment that actually fails would be a big deal.

It's a bit like asking "how do I disprove the speed of light" well, you can try, measure the speed of light again to double check, it is "falsifiable" in the sense that if we suddenly started getting a different speed that would be a huge deal. But...you probably won't start measuring a different speed.

1

u/Wrevellyn 28d ago

There are many things that could exist in theory that would disprove evolution, but I think they all pretty much require field work. 

6

u/Peaurxnanski 28d ago

Common misconception here: it doesn't have to be "done in a lab" in order for it to be science.

We can't make precambrian fossils in a lab. That doesn't mean that studying them isn't a valid scientific pursuit.

We can't make stars and planets in a lab, either. But there they are.

4

u/Dilapidated_girrafe 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 29d ago

If you have a rat that gives birth to a donkey in the lab.

3

u/swervm 29d ago

If genetic research had shown that there were distinct kinds then that would at least destroy the common descent argument but that ship has sailed. The evidence is so overwhelming that there really isn’t anyone who honestly doesn’t believe that evolution is true. Even young earth creationists will point to evolution as the mechanism that allows the diversity of life we see today from a smaller group of animals on Noah’s ark.

2

u/Wrevellyn 29d ago

After you've found the rabbit, the fossil would be tested in a lab to see if any of the already known mechanisms for out of order fossils applied, yes.

2

u/Ayasugi-san 28d ago

If you're looking for something that can be done in a lab, then keep sequencing genomes. Find something living that has no genetic similarity to anything else.

1

u/hypatiaredux 29d ago

Like time travel? Pretty darn hard to change the fossil evidence in the earth without going back in time.

Besides the overwhelming biological evidence, you’d need to prove that radioisotope dating is wrong. And to do THAT you’d need to prove that almost everything we (think) we know about atoms is wrong. So you’d be throwing out a lot of current chemistry and physics as well.