First stop deleting without cause   Johnuniq my suggestion is to either provide a peerreviewed journal article for the methods of falsifiability listed in the article or provide detail as to why they would be valid methods of falsifiability or deleted that portion of the article     I was referencing  observations of organisms being created from above and am saying that anything that references the necessity of a deity is not allowed into science Thus this cannot be a method of falsifiability  We do not allow creationism into science so why would we allow it as a method of falsifiability  Thanks you for being openminded enough to not just flame me  HRAFN  the platypus is not a transitional species because it currently exists and little is known about the Australian fossil record Do you have a peerreviewed journal article backing your claim or are you also committing WPSOAP WPSYN  Dave  I have never been called an original thinker as an insult before so thanks These however are not original thoughts   It is not original thought to check that a listed method of falsifiability falls under the definition of falsifiability The definition of falsifiability is Falsifiability or refutability is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment httpenwikipediaorgwikiFalsifiability  A static fossil record is not an assertion that can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment The fact that the record is not static is a fact that tends to support evolution but not a method for falsifiability   It is not an original thought that the idea of a deity is not allowed into science Why would observations of organisms being created be listed as a method of falsifiability for a scientific theory when they require a deity   The definition of falsifiability is Falsifiability or refutability is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment httpenwikipediaorgwikiFalsifiability If one of these true chimeras were to be found it could still be hypothesized that they were two individual species living in symbiosis and that they evolved into what you see  Since an observation of this kind would not prove evolution false it is not a method for falsifiability   A mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating is not a method of falsifiability because httpbooksgooglecombooksidJjLWYKqehRsCpgPAlpgPAdqDrosophilaFruitflymutationssourcewebotsVyPPBPEhsigfOkUSqLsARelWNDqpeuhqmIhlen shows that death is a mechanism to at least temporarily stop mutations from accumulating for an entire population yet evolution has not been deemed false    Dave you may be right These may be original thoughts but if they are then the science backing evolution is in a pathetic state and founded by scientists not smart enough to look at the definition of falsifiability Or more likely I cannot find peerreviewed journal articles making my claim because there are no peerreviewed journal articles stating that these or valid methods of falsifiability in the first place Thus either provide a peerreviewed journal article for the methods of falsifiability listed in the article or provide detail as to why they would be valid methods of falsifiability or deleted that portion of the article