Realistically evolution cannot be defined as science because it's plasticity will not allow falsification.
I will list all of the things that they say fit with evolution.
Firstly evolution was supposed to be diversity, so homologies fit with evolution. So can we falsify it if there is are two homoplastic organisms? No, because it's simply called, "evolutionary convergence". So both homology and non-homology are considered evolution.
Conclusion; cannot falsify
Then there is the issue of timing. If evolution happens slowly it's evolution(Darwinism), if it happens quickly it's evolution (hopeful monsters).....so then if evolution doesn't happen at all can I falsify it? No, because it's called, "evolutionary stasis". (which in fact is an oxymoron)
Conclusion; cannot falsify.
What about the designer standard for evolution, what do we expect it's design to be like, brilliant, average or poor? ALL of them. Whatever you find becomes the prediction for evolution. They argue bad design in order to say God can't have designed life but if you show them a good design then it is expected from millions of years of perfecting by evolution. Whether the design standard is brilliant, average or poor it's evolution.
Conclusion; cannot falsify.
What about transitionals? Intermediates? If I find some is it evolution? Yes. If I change my mind like with whales and they become artiodactyl ungulates rather than mesonychids, is it still evolution? Yes. Is it evolution if we find no transitionals at all which is pretty much the case once we rule out the few fashionable candidates? Yes, it's still evolution.
Conclusion; cannot falsify.
What about studies on micro-scale evolution such as chichlid fish? If micro changes don't seemingly have any direction towards macro scale anatomical overhauls of phenotype is it evolution? "Yes, because evolution doesn't have to take any direction". So if we find direction it's evolution, we find no direction it's evolution? yes.
Conclusion; cannot falsify.
What about things out of place? What if we find something existing earlier than it's alleged ancestors? Do we push back evolution or falsify it? It's pushed back. So if the story fits it's evolution, if it doesn't fit it's pushed back so it's still evolution. (no use being clever here, by saying nothing is found before it's clade such as a human being found before primates existed. That also isn't very likely to find if you are are actually informed about the creationist history of the world, which you of course aren't. But there are even a few examples like this and they call it contamination, so again evolution can't be falsified because if it can't be pushed back then it's argued to be contamination)
Conclusion; cannot falsify.
what about if we find soft tissues that are much likelier to be thousands of years old? In that case it's some sort of preservation. So if it's soft young tissue it's still an evolutionary timescale just like if there is the expected decay to the point none is left.
Conclusion; cannot falsify.
What about vestigial features or junk DNA? If we find purposes for those features, implying they are not leftovers of evolution, is it still evolution? Yes, and you can just argue that the portion we don't know the function of yet are leftover (argumentum ad silentia), and that the ones found are still vestigial but not in the context previously argued. OR, you can just ignore the ones we find to have function. so even if we find a lot of function implying we just didn't know the designer's reason to put those things there and even though if things do turn out to function you would expect this from design and therefore there would be an absence of evidence for evolution it's still evolution? yes.
Conclusion; cannot falsify.
What about devolution? What if we only find evidence of major characters being lost rather than gained such as the loss of horse's toes, the loss of eyes in fish or the loss of beetle's wings? Then devolution becomes your evidence of evolution!
Conclusion; cannot falsify.
FINAL CONCLUSION; So how do scientists CLAIM they are able to falsify evolution? By abusing hindsight! They choose the kinds of falsification where they say that uncovering a certain fact would certainly falsify evolution-theory, however the hindsight they have from their knowledge of the facts means that they simply know they will never uncover such a fact. Such as saying, "if we find a human in the Cambrian". But the facts show humans just aren't found in that type of marine-laid down rock, and even creationists don't argue that humans dwell at the bottom of the seas. The truth is that evolution is plastic enough to basically adapt to any fact making it an inherently logically weak theory. It's ironic that the only thing that actual evolves is evolution-theory.
In simple terms, to summarise; Evolution can be fast slow, absent, divergent or non-divergent, it's history present or not present, it's remains fitting as evidence of youth or great age, it's transitionals one group or another group later on or non existent, it's design can be brilliant, average or rubbish and it can be found in the right place, wrong place or nowhere at all and devolution can be your evolution. It's leftovers can be genuine leftovers or functional characters or a mixture of both and there isn't any scenario which cannot be argued to not be evolution.
That is not a science-theory, it is an all-encompassing naturalist ideology designed to replace an omniscient God by having all of the answers in His place.
