Basic evolution is fully falsifiable -- evolution defined as:
Of course, such "proof" is impossible, since descent with modification is easily observed and confirmed.
And that means, in terms of scientific language that "descent with modification" is not just a theory, it's a confirmed fact.
And, of course, such "proof" is also impossible, since Natural Selection is easily observed and confirmed.
And that means, in terms of scientific language that "Natural Selection" is not just a theory, it is also a confirmed fact.
So the two elements of term "evolution" -- descent with modifications and natural selection -- are not just scientific theories, they are also confirmed facts.
Further, the long-term accumulated effects of evolution -- the development of new breeds, species, genera, etc. -- could also be falsified simply by providing some sort of proof that evolutionary changes cannot extend beyond some certain, defined limit.
Yes, of course, there are natural limits to evolution.
For example, only new modifications which somehow "work better" than the previous model (or at least "well enough") will survive Natural Selection.
As a result there is no possible way for, say, insects to evolve into frogs -- or visa versa.
But a frog which lays its eggs in the water could evolve into a closely related animal which lays its eggs on dry land -- something reptilian.
That's what evolution theory says, and also what the fossil and DNA records show.
big black dog: "The only explanation I have ever seen was if the fossil record was found out of order, and it has been, and it is always rationalized away in the most illogical ways:"
I'd say: if your attached article is a typical example, then it's the criticisms of science which are "most illogical".
In truth, I can barely stand to read stuff like that -- it is so false, so full of b*ll cr*p it makes me spitting mad.
Those people have no shame. Where do we even start?
Well, I'll give it a try:
article: "Are the Oldest Rocks Always On the Bottom?"
No, of course not. Continents move, mountains rise and erode, layers of rocks get deformed, twisted, sometimes bent back on themselves -- where I live everyone can see all this on any road-cut through a mountainside.
So you do sometimes see younger layers folded underneath older layers. And it's science's job to figure all this stuff out -- that's not "rationalization," it's what science does.
article: "Catastrophism, or the evidence that mass death and sudden extinction of species occurred, is anathema to many evolutionists."
What nonsense!
Evidence of catastrophes and sudden extinctions are scattered throughout the geological and fossil record -- only the most well known of them being the catastrophe which extinguished dinosaurs 65 million years ago, allowing for the rise of mammals, primates, etc.
That's the most famous, but there were many others.
article: "First, there is no place on earth where the entire geologic succession of strata can be found."
A bogus assumption to begin with.
All geological strata were laid down in each specific place at specific times according to specific local conditions.
Many were then modified (i.e., heated & compressed), inclined, bent and partially or wholly eroded away, again according local conditions.
The remaining stratigraphic record, then, is what it is -- a complete record of certain conditions over time.
Read carefully, it tells a lot, including the fossils of organisms which died there.
article: "The strata are dated according to the fossils found in them.
The fossils are dated according to the strata in which they are found. Does that sound rather arbitrary? It is."
Utterly false.
There are literally dozens of different ways for dating ancient materials -- perhaps the most significant of which are radiometric techniques, of which there are nearly two dozen.
But in dating anything, context is everything. Many strata are complex mixtures of ancient geological events, and understanding them correctly takes every tool in the geological tool box.
And that's just science, not "rationalizing."
article: "As we shall see, evolutionary geology immediately discards data facts-evidence in the amount of billions of tons of rock, whole mountain ranges, mammoth regions of the earth, where the fossils found in the rocks contradict their theories."
Total nonsense and mischaracterizations.
Indeed, as I read down through the article's endless yammering b*ll cr*p, I notice it does not cite even one specific example of crimes it claims routinely happen in geology.
That is just not acceptable argumentation.
In reality, the earth is full of mysteries, but there are no specific examples I know of which are not explained by careful science.
article: "But what if the layer of rock (stratum) containing the so-called “older” fossils, and the stratum containing the so-called “younger” fossils beneath it show absolutely no evidence of any twisting, faulting, or movement? What if there is perfect conformity between them?"
First of all, in the processes of mountain building strata do get turned over, and many ancient mountains once stood where now there are now only flat plains.
In the long age of the earth, mountains are temporary features which can rise and fall in a geological eye-blink.
Indeed, my house sits in a valley where there was once a mountain top.
But softer rock eroded faster, leaving a valley surrounded by hills which were once at the mountain's bottom
Second, all this talk about "older" and "younger" rocks or fossils is meaningless without specifics, of what kind of rocks, what kind of fossils and how were they dated.
article: "It must irritate evolutionists to no end that there are many, many places in our earth where supposedly “older” fossils are found ON TOP of supposedly “younger” fossils."
No it doesn't, not in the least, especially once it's understood.
And I'm going to stop here, because the article's endless nonsense just goes on and on and on without ever making a valid point.
Way, way down at the bottom the article finally mentions a few examples, which it claims are impossible.
But it makes no effort to provide even the most basic of real scientific data about those examples.
So I'd reject the whole article as being specious at best, maliciously false at worst.
Here is the bottom line: buried away in universities and museums all over the world are serious geological studies of virtually every important formation on earth.
If anyone were seriously interested in the examples the article cites, those would be places to begin investigating.
Since EVERYONE agrees that mutations occur modifying offspring, this in no way represents a viable falsification of evolution. Of course, the vast majority of mutations result in things like Ta Sachs disease rather than anything of benefit. Mutations tend to make a population inviable rather than producing any kind of beneficial property
And that means, in terms of scientific language that "descent with modification" is not just a theory, it's a confirmed fact.
What you are describing is accepted genetics and it is not evolution.
Plus Natural Selection -- could easily be falsified if some scientist could prove that modifications resulting from genetic mutations never affect an offspring's chances of living to reproduce.
Natural selection is accepted by EVERYONE and it is not evolution.
Further, the long-term accumulated effects of evolution -- the development of new breeds, species, genera, etc.
Speciation is accepted by everyone and it is not evolution.
To falsify evolution, you would have to falsify the idea that all life on earth "evolved" from simpler organisms to more complex organisms through mutations and natural selection.
Even young earth creationists who in no way accept evolution readily accept the concepts you mentioned, often even more robustly than evolutionists believe them (an explanation of the diversity of species after Noah's Ark, for example).
The fact of the matter, too, is that there are many, many places where supposed older life is deposited on top of younger life in such a fashion that it is clear that this did not happen from some "shift of earth." The evolutionists even have a term for this, "deceptive conformity," a typical kind of hand waving by evolutionists (punctuated equilibrium, etc.)