The problem is that soft tissue fossil evidence is non-existent, therefore 'falsifiability' is meaningless. That's why the 'theory' stands. It's like Kylie's mousetrap argument. The 'primitive' examples are only speculation. What we do have is a complete mousetrap with no evidence that the design evolved in the way her link supposes. Same with evolution. There is no organic, biological evidence that creatures evolved.
So much fail... so little time and energy to address it all....
The theory makes predictions. You can test those predictions.
The theory details aspects of the process. You can observe each of those aspects in living creatures today.
- mutation: check
- inheritability of mutated dna: check
- the best fit for the environment are most successful at living and breeding: check
- this repeats every generation, having the mutation changes cumulated in offspring dna: check
If this is the case, and all life has common ancestry, then all life is a gigantic family tree.
Meaning it will fall into a nested hierarchy.
This nested hierarchy is exposed in so many different ways...
You see it in anatomy.
You see it in individual genes.
You see it by comparing sequences of genes.
You see it by looking for specific DNA markers.
You see it in phenotype traits
You see it in the psychology of creatures.
You see it in the geographic distribution of species.
You see it in the fossil record (yes, you can study the anatomy of these ancient creatures as well... they expose bones after all).
It's rather ridiculous actually, how solidly and consistently all these predictions check out and fit like a glove.
See, this is why I said "find me a reptile with an inner earbone". Because in the
nested hierarchy of life,
mammals have inner earbones. Reptiles, or any others, do not.
Birds have feathers, but mammals do not.
Mammals have hair, but amphibians do not.
And digging deeper, you can do the exact same with genes.
There will be genes that you'll only find in primates. There'll be genetic markers you'll only find in felines. Etc etc.
There's a gazillion ways you could show it to be wrong, if it is indeed wrong.
What the fossil record shows is a wide variety of fully functioning, successful critters
Nobody says otherwise.
No, evolution does not predict the existance of crockoducks.
In fact, such a creature would break the nested hierarchy and would thus falsify evolution.
Funny, isn't it?
That said I do believe in survival of the fittest in that the biggest, strongest, most able of the species pass on those qualities.
It's a bit of a shame then, that that is incorrect.
Evolution is not a ladder towards "bigger, stronger, smarter".
Evolution is an
adaptive process.
"Fitness" in "survival of the fittest" is not about
speed or power.
It is about being a better
fit for the environment you happen to find yourself in.
So what "fit" means, is
entirely dependend on the environment.
As in, you can't say what "fit" is, unless you know what environment we are talking about. Because "fit" in environment A, might be very "unfit" in environment B.
Take being "big" for example.
What does "big" imply? For example, big animals consume more food and more water.
So in periods of extreme shortage of both, they'll die.
A mouse might manage during the exact same period of shortage.
See?