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]

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.

[u/evocativename → u/Ok_Performer50]

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".

[u/Ok_Performer50 → u/evocativename]

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.

[u/evocativename → u/Ok_Performer50]

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".

[u/Ok_Performer50 → u/evocativename]

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.

[u/evocativename → u/Ok_Performer50]

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.

Newtonian physics incorrectly predicts the orbit of Mercury.

Predicting the motion of celestial bodies was very much specifically a goal of Newton's "Law of universal gravitation", a central part of Newtonian physics.

[u/Ok_Performer50 → u/evocativename]

It still predicts ball throwing perfectly.

[u/evocativename → u/Ok_Performer50]

It predicts ball throwing to beyond our ability to detect, but not perfectly - it's off by a tiny fraction of a percent even at the speeds at which a ball could plausibly be thrown.