Define "Evidence"

. I have the best interests of science at heart. Most people including scientists themselves often fail to see the point

Theres a big difference twixt "False" and falsifiable".

Actually, your Jupiter statement is NOT falsifiable at this juncture

For exa,mple if I say that "mammals descended from synapsid reptiles in the late Permian", is falsifiable if I can find a fossil mammal earlier than the late Permian or that I can show that it descended from "Fish".

Your example is based merely on things that theoretically "could" happen, but which have not, and which have no way of being "tested."

I would invite Farma to come n live his golden days in Europe, but I guess its to late for him...to much "murikan" in his cholesterol by now...

. . . We don't have true proof of anything unless we agree to it socially, what we usually call sufficient reasoning reviewed by peers and specialists....

I now wish to give some reasons why I regard Darwinism as metaphysical, and as a research programme. It is metaphysical because it is not testable. One might think that it is....[But] Darwinism does not really predict the evolution of variety. It therefore can not really explain it. At best, it can predict the evolution of variety under "favourable conditions".

Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and the logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation.

I have in the past described the theory as "almost tautological", and I have tried to explain how the theory of natural selection could be untestable (as is a tautology) and yet of great scientific interest...I still believe that natural selection works in this way as a research program.

Really severe tests of the theory of natural selection are hard to come by, much more so than tests of otherwise comparable theories in physics or chemistry....

The theory of natural selection may be so formulated that it is far from tautological. In this case it is not only testable, but it turns out to be not strictly universally true...

I found that those of my friends who were admirers of Marx, Freud, and Adler, were impressed by a number of points common to these theories, and especially by their apparent explanatory power. These theories appeared to be able to explain practically everything that happened within the fields to which they referred...

A Marxist could not open a newspaper without finding on every page confirming evidence for his interpretation of history... As for Adler, I was much impressed by a personal experience. Once, in 1919, I reported to him a case which to me did not seem particularly Adlerian, but which he found no difficulty in analysing in terms of his theory of inferiority feelings, although he had not even seen the child.

Slightly shocked, I asked him how he could be so sure. "Because of my thousandfold experience," he replied; whereupon I could not help saying: "And with this new case, I suppose, your experience has become thousand-and-one-fold." Science, Pseudo-Science, and Falsifiability 1962

Evolution from a inner spacetime pov DOES explain almost everything ! The only thing you get wrong is to not believe it !

The unsatifactoriness of the explanation lies in the fact that we can explain too much with this kind of assumption: almost everything that can happen, and even things that cannot happen.

[This is probably with it in mind, I'm not sure.]. And we should be worried whenever there are no alternatives--whenever a dominant theory becomes too exclusive. The danger to progress in science is much increased if the theory in question obtains something like a monopoly.

But there is an even greater danger: a theory, even a scientific theory, may become an intellectual fashion, a substitute for religion, an entrenched ideology.

I think that this is quite a serious problem at a time when intellectuals, including scientists, are prone to fall for ideologies and intellectual fashions. This may well be due to the decline of religion, to the unsatisfied and unconscious religious needs of our fatherless society. During my lifetime I have witnessed, quite apart from the various totalitarian movements, a considerable number of intellectually highbrow and avowedly non-religious movements with aspects whose religious character is unmistakable once your eyes are open to them.

You are quite right on one thing Evolution from a inner spacetime pov DOES explain almost everything !