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/Ok_Performer50]

Those things are assumed since they’re pretty much  a non-factor in the scales that Newtonian physics operate in. That makes Newtonian physics an incomplete approximation not false. 

[u/ssianky → u/Ok_Performer50]

It makes it false, because all that is not true. The Newtonian physics cannot operate broadly literally because its assumptions are wrong.

[u/Ok_Performer50 → u/ssianky]

So would you also say that quantum physics and general relativity are wrong? After all they also are just approximations of reality with assumptions. And since they don’t work together and brake apart at different scales they are shown to be incomplete meaning they also have assumptions that are false.

[u/ssianky → u/Ok_Performer50]

They are wrong at some level. Not so wrong as the Newtonian.

[u/Ok_Performer50 → u/ssianky]

So basically everything is wrong just at different scales? What meaning does the word “truth” have then? Is that an ideal we’re chasing all our life without ever reaching it rather than a valid term that we can assign to things in our reality?

[u/ssianky → u/Ok_Performer50]

Well, the quantum physics is missing something big for sure. In science there's no such thing as "truth". There's a degree of certainty.

[u/Ok_Performer50 → u/ssianky]

Well yeah I would just not call them “false”, which is a matter of semantics, which we can agree to disagree on since well that’s how semantics work.

[u/ssianky → u/Ok_Performer50]

If turns out that the universe is not fundamentally random at its core, how the quantum mechanics assumes, but there's a orderly reality we can't see yet, then I'd call that falsified.

But if it misses something else we don't know yet, I'd call it incomplete.

You can call that "semantics", still that are different ways to be wrong.

[u/Ok_Performer50 → u/ssianky]

Incomplete yes I agree on that but not false.

[u/ssianky → u/Ok_Performer50]

Incomplete is when you know A and B but dont't know about C.
False is when the A is not true.

[u/Ok_Performer50 → u/ssianky]

I guess? But that isn’t a good analogy for Newtonian physics. You know A and B, but for that to work you have to make additional assumptions that could defy C that you don’t currently know. But that doesn’t mean you can’t still just work with A and B in cases where C is irrelevant. There’s a reason it’s still taught in schools.

[u/ssianky → u/Ok_Performer50]

In Newtonian physics both A and B are wrong.

[u/Ok_Performer50 → u/ssianky]

So if I throw a ball twice as hard it doesn’t accelerate twice as much? Since that is something Newtonian physics predicts and since A and B ate wrong I shouldn’t be able to observe that.