Quote Originally Posted by Mangudai View Post
Question: What hypothetical observations would disprove darwinism?

It's a good question.

Well, bearing in mind that Darwin's Theory of the Origin of Species is now just a thread in a much more complex Theory of Evolution, I shall assume you mean the latter.

As noted above, there are many scientific disciplines outside biology that provide evidence, so one might be able to argue for say, evidence that invalidated the dating of rocks (ie some evidence that showed us stratification theory was wrong, or that our physics were wrong when measuring radioactive decay) might shake the usefulness of the fossil record.

The Theory of Evolution has been modified many times by observations - not least because Darwin had no knowledge of genetics. The Creationists tend to use this as an argument that the whole thing is utterly flawed, whereas it is quite normal for science. This replicates each philosophy - a creationist will distrust anything that does not emerge fully formed and free from doubt - a scientist welcomes revision of ideas - their evolution, if you will.

However, to be brief and flippant, I would say apply the same standards as the advocates of Creationism do. They constantly argue that no-one has seen a fish evolve into a frog, therefore, evolution is bunk. (Macro-evolution as they term it - I haven't seen any arguments that micro-evolution doesn't happen).

So, when a moose spontaneously appears out of thin air fully formed - ie we get to see creation in action and an observation that does not fit evolutionary theory - I might start questioning evolution.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
More likely, I might start questioning whether it's wise to drive country roads under the influence.