One way evolution is falsified is connected to the branch of science called abiogenesis. Abiogenesis studies the period of time before the theory of evolution even applies. Evolution is detached from its own origins; abiogenesis.
Evolution starts at the first replicators, which were simple RNA and DNA templates that could store information and undergo change. This makes sense. But how did the first templates evolve, before templates existed? DNA is not the only template that is theoretically possible, so why/how did DNA and RNA evolve?
The analogy is like looking at the evolution of the automobile, while ignoring the cart, buggy and carriage, from which it conceptually spawned. The automobile did not just appear when the motor was invented, except in terms of human based semantics. Written and spoken language is subjective. Evolution uses a magical subjective starting point.
There's nothing "magical" about the starting point of evolution.
It starts at whatever point the properties of object were subject to its processes.
ie, the second imperfect replicators were subject to natural selection
Evolution is, at bottom, a process that automatically happens, inevitably, whenever you have systems that reproduce with variation and are in competition with peers over limited resources (and by "resources", I include everything from food to potential mates).
So, whenever abiogenesis (or anyone's god of choice, for that matter) produces something that matches such a system, biological evolution sets in.
Conceptually, the mechanism that led up to the first replicators, should also be part of continuing evolution.
No.
See above. Evolution concerns system that already exist and which has following properties:
1. they reproduce with variation
and
2. they compete with peers over limited resources
Without these two, there is no biological evolution.
So how could the origination of such systems be part of evolution?
The horse and buggy was used to transport people and supplies, which is still what automobile do. The automobile did not invent these needs. Ironically, the horse and buggy were green; solar/grass powered. Now the automobile is looping back to its fuel origins; solar.
You are not even comparing apples and oranges here.
You are comparing plastic apples with organic oranges.
This falls in the category of "not even wrong".
Random change on the DNA may not be the whole story, if the preliminary mechanisms were known. Experiments that that gave us a clue, into what came before evolution, and what drives evolution today, were done in the 1950's. Cells were dehydrated and the water was replaced with a wide range of solvents theorized to support life on other planets. The result was no life appeared in any of the test cells and nothing, including DNA, worked, except in water. The DNA does not work in other solvents. It is dependent on water so it can work.
It turns out everything in the cell is tuned to water and not just any solvent. This tells us that water was the drive behind natural selection at the nanoscale. Water is more fundamental, with even DNA designed/selected to work in water. Water was there from day one, and is still critical to everything in the cell. How does evolution take into account natural selection by water?
Your question at the end makes no sense.
What this tells us, is that life most likely originated in water and that this relic carries through to the modern age. To the point that every cell contains a pocket of water within which the biological machinery does its thing.
I'm not seeing what problem you think this causes for the theory.
Natural selection at the macro-scale, such as in a dry desert environment, optimizes life to the needs of the dry desert environment. Not all change on the DNA will work or be selected. Since all things within earth based cells only work in water, then water must have been and still is the natural nano-scale environment used for chemical selection.
Even if we assume there is random change on the DNA, the final things chosen, have to be tuned to the nano environment of aqueous hydrogen bonding, just as they are today. This never changes.
Another way of saying this, is that evolution can not go back to the drawing board.
It can only move forward by tweaking what is already present.
This is why our eyes have a blind spot (all the wiring in front of the retina / photo-sensitive cells). Why our mouth is actually too small for all our teeth (causing the need to pull "wisdom" teeth). Why our spine isn't actually fit for bipedalism (causing lower back pains in 70% of humans at some point in their life). Why a nerve that only needs to travel a couple of inches from our throat to a bit further down, it actually goes down into the chest, loops around the aorta and goes back up again.
Etc etc etc.
These are exactly the kind of "evolutionary relics" that we expect from a blind step-wise process like evolution.
So again I don't see what problem you think this causes for the theory.
A better model of evolution needs to include how water makes chemical selections, so all is tuned to water, and so life can appear, integrate, and perpetuate.
I don't see why.
There's pretty much consensus that life originated in water and that that wasn't a coincidence. So why you think it is so surprising that the biological machinery inside cells exist in a pocket of water, is not clear at all.
This is more deterministic than the current evolutionary model.
It seems like you just would like that to be the case.
It isn't though.
