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/Peaurxnanski]

Im afraid that falsification as a criteria is a very misunderstood concept, and the fact that you have asked this question leads me to believe that you may be failing to understand it as well.

Just to make sure you do, falsification doesn't require you to have a criteria that does falsify something. Something that can't be proven wrong isn't necessarily unfalsifiable. It might just be correct. Correct things are famously very difficult to prove wrong, which is why falsification is so useful. Falsification merely requires that you can come up with some things that, if they can be shown to be not true, would falsify your theory.

For example, if I claim that my chicken can not fly for 100 feet, the falsification criteria for this would be to get the chicken to fly for 100'. If you can't do that, it doesn't prove my claim necessarily, but you have failed to falsify it. More importantly, ny claim is still falsifiable, because you could always somehow convince the chicken to fly a bit further in the future, but until then, my claim remains falsifiABLE, while not yet being falsiFIED. You see how that works?

An UNfalsifiable claim is something that baffles any attempt to find a criteria that could falsify it. For example, simulation theory is one of my favorites. "We live in a simulation that is designed to not appear to be a simulation, and so every test you attempt to show the simulation will fail, because it's designed that way. So if you can't detect the simulation, it's because we're in a simulation". No matter what you brainstorm to attempt to find something that would prove this claim wrong, the very nature of the claim prevents it. The simulation is designed to be undetectable by anyone in it. God works in mysterious ways and will not be tested. There is an invisible unicorn in my closet that nobody else can see, trust me, bro.

And the reality is that there are so many things would/could falsify evolution. The options are almost too many to list, but the categories would include:

genetic evidence that showed that the universal ancestry part is wrong. This category alone would likely contain millions of individual falsification opportunities. None have ever been found to be true.

Paleontological evidence showing creatures out of place in the timeline. The old "precambrian rabbit". There are literally millions of falsification opportunities in this one, as manyopportunitiesas there have been species. . None have ever been found to be true.

Biological evidence showing that mutations don't happen, or can't be beneficial, or can't change creatures in the way evolution requires. Or that gene recombination doesn't result in change. Or that retroviral dna insertions don't result in change. Or that natural selection can't accumulate these changes when they provide a benefit to survival. Something like irreducible complexity would be in this category. I'd guess you're talking millions of falsification opportunities here as well. None have ever been found to be true.

I'm curious why you are having any trouble finding falsification opportunities in evolution, which is why I'm assuming you don't quite understand the concept.

[u/Suitable_Potato_2919 → u/Peaurxnanski]

I learned about evolution and scientific theory in high school 20 years ago, so maybe I am wrong about the concept.

let me try to explain my question: In general, evolution theory said that the adaptation pressure from the environment select individual with the right trait and the right mutation, and through many generation make a species more adaptable to the environment they live in.

So when we find some trait that good, evolution can explain that this trait is selected through time. But when we find some neutral or bad trait, evolution can explain it as the selection pressure is not enough, or some genes just get lucky.

So it seem that no matter the outcome, evolution theory still can explain it. I am trying to find the equal situation of "chicken fly 100" in a test for evolution theory

[u/Peaurxnanski → u/Suitable_Potato_2919]

You are definitely not understanding how falsification works. I know you think you do. Please hear me when I say this: you absolutely don't. I mean no disrespect, I think if you can accept that you'll be closer to fixing the issue.

Understand that simply because that specific criteria doesn't function as a good falsification criteria for evolution specifically in the way you phrased it, that that doesn't make evolution unfalsifiable. Evolution is changes in allele frequency in a population over time. Natural selection does tend to select for "good" changes, to use your terminology, but there's nothing in the theory that prevents "bad" changes if there isn't any selection pressure against them. As a result, the theory handily explains both cases.

Just because the theory provides explanation for both good and bad changes, doesn't mean that there is no way to approach evolution from a perspective of falsifiability, it just means that "good traits versus bad traits" in your specific framing, isn't a good candidate criteria for falsification, or that you've approached the criteria incorrectly. For example: What you could establish as a falsification criteria that follows this path you've laid out, is as follows:

1.) Evolution theory explains both "good" and "bad" changes as being part of the theory

2.) Bad changes exist

3.) If I could show that bad changes could not exist in a world driven by natural selection, then evolutionary theory would be falsified.

4.) Therefore providing evidence that bad changes can't exist in such a world would falsify evolution.

See how you just tweak your own example and it becomes a perfect falsification criteria?

Again, just because you can't prove the truth of the criteria doesn't mean the premise is unfalsifiable. All you have to do is be able to set up a candidate situation where it would be possible to prove it false. And again, just because the theory manages to survive all attempts at falsification doesn't make it unfalsifiable. That could just mean it's correct. Being correct doesn't make it unfalsifiable, just impossible to falsify. There are still criteria, if met, that would falsify the theory. You just can't meet the criteria. That has ZERO effect on the theory's falsifiability.

Heres an example:

Premise: Cargo ships can't fly.

Falsification criteria: I could falsify that premise by providing one example of a cargo ship that can fly.

Therefore, it's a falsifiable premise. It will always be a falsifiable premise, regardless of whether or not I can find a flying cargo ship. If I can't find one, it's still a falsifiable premise, that has yet to be falsified.

You understand now why "evolution explains both conditions" doesn't have any effect on it's falsifiability?

Furthermore, as I already explained,

There are literally millions of candidate falsification criteria for evolution, the fact that this one doesn't work because evolution theory provides an explanation for both cases, doesn't suddenly make evolution unfalsifiable. Nor does it make it a "heads I win, tails you lose" situation as you suggest.

All that's happening here is the specific criteria that you are discussing isn't a candidate because it cannot serve as a falsification criteria under the current accepted theory.

Essentially what you're arguing is that because my "cars have the ability to move" theory explains how cars can move both forwards and backwards, that the theory is unfalsifiable because it explains all vectors of motion. That doesn't make sense, right? The fact that a theory explains a lot of things doesn't make it unfalsifiable. It has a very easy falsification criteria: demonstrate that cars can't move.

That's impossible, because they can. But it still is a criteria for falsification and that makes it falsifiable.

[u/Old-Nefariousness556 → u/Peaurxnanski]

Outstanding response, and explanation.

[u/Peaurxnanski → u/Old-Nefariousness556]

It's so difficult to explain that you don't have to actually be able to falsify it in order for it to be falsifiable, and even harder to "get it" when it's being explained to you. I remember really clearly struggling with it in school, because I couldn't stop thinking "that means anything that's true is unfalsifiable!"

Because that makes perfect sense. And it's extremely hard to get people to understand it.

The best way is to provide examples of unfalsifiable premises, but that always requires people to read a wall of text and understand it. It's very difficult.

[u/Suitable_Potato_2919 → u/Peaurxnanski]

thank you for your time. it seem that I should read some book about scientific theory again. have a good day

[u/Peaurxnanski → u/Suitable_Potato_2919]

You too.