[DannyTN]

Absoutely not! There are thousands of ways evolution could have fallen had the data been different: EG:

A precambrian rabbit fossil.

That wouldn't disprove evolution. You'd either say the rabbit fossil was "misplaced", that layer wasn't the precambrian, or that rabbits were a special case.

An elephant fossil in Hawaii

That wouldn't disprove evolution. You'd either say that the land was connected to a continent at one point, or that the elephant wandered onto an iceberg and drifted to the island.

A pseudogene in a chimp and an orangutang but not in a person

That wouldn't disprove evolution. You'd simply say that was a mutation in the person.

A 'missing link' between birds and mammals (don't get your hopes up, the platypus bill only looks like a bird's)

That wouldn't disprove evolution. You'd simply change your tree. Hasn't that already happened a few times in other species.

A pseudogene in a cow and a whale but not in a hippo.

Again, you'd simply say the one is a mutation. But the following page has an interesting discussion on whales and hippos and how they make a strong case for common design as opposed to evolution. It's about half way down look for a bold faced "Whales". Whales

So I don't see anything in any of those examples that could falsify evolution. The cambrian explosion ought to falsify it but evolutionists ignore it.

[Dimensio]

That wouldn't disprove evolution. You'd either say the rabbit fossil was "misplaced",

How could it have been misplaced? What would determine that it was misplaced?

that layer wasn't the precambrian,

A valid error in dating the layer as precambrian would prevent falsification, but it would have to be valid.

or that rabbits were a special case.

Why would they be a special case? What argument would be used to justify that status?

That wouldn't disprove evolution. You'd either say that the land was connected to a continent at one point

What evidence would be used to support this assertion?

or that the elephant wandered onto an iceberg and drifted to the island.

No. You're just reaching for an excuse. No credible scientist would ever make such a claim.

That wouldn't disprove evolution. You'd simply say that was a mutation in the person.

I believe that he was speaking of humans in general (but he can correct me if I am mistaken). In any case, your claim that this excuse would be used shows that you are either ignorant of genetics or you're so desperate to "prove" that evolution is not falsifiable that you us to believe that biologists would claim something so absurd.

That wouldn't disprove evolution. You'd simply change your tree. Hasn't that already happened a few times in other species.

Actually, it would have serious implications for quite a bit of current theory, and it would require a great deal of restructuring. Nonetheless, it would falsify evolution theory as it currently stands.

Again, you'd simply say the one is a mutation.

Again, you think us idiots who don't understand genetics.

So I don't see anything in any of those examples that could falsify evolution.

Of course not. You've invented absurd excuses that you expect to be used, even though no scientist worth his salt would make such claims. You're so desperate to prove that you're right that you're reaching for bizarre and unrealistic counters to the examples offered. You're so stuck in your mindset that "evolution is religion" and that its "followers" are so desperate that they will ignore countering facts that you're coming up with excuses for them before the theory is even falsified. The problem is that you're not thinking the "excuses" through at all. If an explanation for elephant fossils appearing in Hawaii can be made, it will be made, but it's not going to get anywhere if there's no evidence to support it.

The cambrian explosion ought to falsify it but evolutionists ignore it.

Why should the Cambrian Explosion falsify evolution. Show work.