Deputy Dog:
Would it do? Or would you simply say that the rock must have been misidentified? Or, you would say that it has a rabbit in it, so it can’t be Precambrian.
Obviously, in the unlikely event that something like this happened palaeontologists would be cautious about discarding the entire sciences of geology and biology; they would rigorously test the fossil and the rock before doing so. Nothing as earth-shattering as this has ever been found but from time to time fossils have been discovered where they weren't expected. Theories are rightly modified when this happens. So far this has only happened in very minor ways.
When things are found together that shouldn't be, the "theory" is simply modified.
As it should be.Like I said, some of the details of theories of evolutionary history have been refined this way. If you're claiming however that even if there were evidence to falsify evolution, the scientists would dishonestly change the theory around it, then I think you're very wrong and you're doing a great disservice to scientists everywhere. It's a very unfair way of arguing, as you began with saying the theory can't be falsified; when I give an example of how it can be falsified, you simply claim that if it were to be so falsified, scientists would simply pretend that it had not been.
That's easy, just look at the simplest living cell. It's so simple that you can't duplicate it.
Fortunately, it can duplicate itself. That has nothing to do with irreducible complexity. There is no aspect of a cell that could not in principle have evolved from a less complex precursor.
3) A single (moderately long) sequence of DNA that appeared in organisms from different clades but not on all organisms within a clade.
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at with that one.
A clade is a taxonomic group comprising a single common ancestor and all its descendants. You'll need to be at least familiar with this concept to be able to discuss evolution. All organisms within a clade have features that are not shared by organisms outside that clade. Furthermore, as predicted by the evolutionary model all organisms within a clade have DNA sequences that are not shared by organisms outside that clade. This is expected and necessary if all life has evolved from a common ancestor. (It is not at all obvious why an intelligent designer would feel the need to organise things so rigidly.) A single DNA sequence of sufficient length that was shared by, for example, a pig and a spider, but not by a horse would be enough to falsify the theory of evolution by natural selection.
4) Diseases not mutating to become resistant to the most common forms of treatment.
This happens most of the time when people get well.
It does happen most of the time, and unlike some of the other examples I gave, a single instance of a disease not mutating is not enough to falsify evolution. Of course, a single instance of a disease mutating in response to treatment such as antibiotics is sufficient to falsify the hypothesis that organisms do not evolve in response to their environment.
5) Bacteria in a petri dish not adapting to a change in environment under controlled conditions.
Why would anyone want to try such a thing? it is hardly an example of evolution. Bacteria change all the time, but, they are still bacteria. They don't evolve into any other form of life.
Someone would want to try such a thing in order to measure rates of evolution, to study the spread of disease and the efficacy of various medicines, to find solutions to environmental problems and undoubtedly a whole host of other reasons. This is a textbook example of evolution by natural selection. Bacteria do change all the time, and while the changes themselves are random (as expected and predicted by evolutionists) the effects of those changes are not random but always - always, always, always - show an increased ability to survive in whatever environment they have been subjected to (again, expected and predicted by evolutionists). What is not expected or predicted is that changes that took a billion years or more to occur would repeat themselves within the few decades that scientist have been able to study evolution in detail.
