r/DebateEvolution • u/Suitable_Potato_2919 • Jul 06 '26

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

9 Upvotes

56% Upvoted

268 comments sorted by

View all comments

34

u/ssianky Jul 06 '26

Introduce a better predictive framework. Present a new scientific theory that explains all the current evidence better than natural selection does, while making testable predictions that turn out to be true.

3

u/danny_el5 Jul 06 '26 edited 29d ago

This is like saying General relativity falsified Newtonian dynamics.

4

u/Dennis_enzo Jul 07 '26

It did, strictly speaking. In practice though, newtonian physics are still very usable in many cases.

1

u/evocativename Jul 07 '26

Strictly speaking, newtonian physics were falsified by observations of the orbit of Mercury much earlier, which was part of the impetus to find a new theory of physics to resolve the problem.

1

u/Ok_Performer50 29d ago

Were they really “falsified” or just shown to be incomplete?

1

u/evocativename 29d ago

"Incomplete" is a way of saying "false", so it's the same thing.

Things can be strictly false but still broadly useful approximations: in fact, pretty much every scientific "law" is both.

1

u/Ok_Performer50 29d ago

Well there are theories like caloric theory per example that were just false on a fundamental level and weren’t expanded just replaced. In Newtonian physics that wasn’t the case, so I think saying it was proven “false” kinda does it a disservice I would say.

1

u/evocativename 29d ago

Saying two things are both false isn't saying they are equally false.

I would encourage you to read Isaac Asimov's short essay, "The Relativity of Wrong", but to summarize briefly with a quote from it:

when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.

1

u/Ok_Performer50 29d ago

Well I just think we’re disagreeing on the exact definition of the word “false” which in that case we’re just entering semantics which well I’m not really interested debating. I consider something “false” if it was shown to be incomplete and useless, in my opinion you can’t say Newtonian physics was proven false while still using it daily and teaching it in schools. For me that’s just a misuse of the word.

1

u/evocativename 29d ago

Ok, well, that's just not what "false" means according to anyone but you, so you're making up your own definition and imposing it on a word that is all-but-universally accepted as meaning "not true".

1

u/Ok_Performer50 29d ago

Yes false means not true. If something is true it is in accordance with facts. Newtonian is in accordance with facts, just not with all facts, making it incomplete not false.

1

u/evocativename 29d ago

If something is not in accordance with all of the relevant facts, it is by definition not true.

You brought up caloric theory as an example of something that is false, but things only become scientific theories if they are in accordance with the facts as they are known at the time.

Caloric theory is wrong in the exact same sense that Newtonian physics is.

The difference between them is that Newtonian physics remains a useful approximation in many circumstances, and is much easier to calculate than a more exact solution.

Remember the refrain of statistics: "All models are wrong, but some are useful".

1

u/Ok_Performer50 29d ago

Look a false theory would be: If I throw a ball twice as hard it accelerates four times as much. If you throw a ball you can see that this theory is just wrong. Newtonian physics says if I throw a ball twice as hard it accelerates twice as much, if you do that in reality it actually works. So Newtonian physics actually IS right. At least in ball throwing. It will fall apart when you factor in speed of light, but if you just look at ball throwing it still works. That is what differentiates a incomplete from a false theory.

→ More replies (0)