“This is actually the fallacy of affirming the consequent. That because P ‘predicts’ Q and Q is observed; then P is supported. This works if and only if all alternatives to P are proved to be impossible. “
—That is not the fallacy of affirming the consequent. To be the fallacy, you’d have to replace the word ‘supported’ with ‘proven’.
I suppose it could be said that someone is committing the fallacy if they said that it’s impossible for evolution to be false - but I don’t think I’ve ever seen that.
Since no single fact ever 'proves' a theory, supported is the correct term to use. It's not the 'proves' vs 'supported' that is the operative argument. It is the 'therefore'.
"I suppose it could be said that someone is committing the fallacy if they said that it’s impossible for evolution to be false - but I don’t think I’ve ever seen that."
Evolution is based on assumed naturalism plus the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Evolution (P) 'predicts' change, Change (Q) is observed; therefore Evolution is supported. This is and will always be a fallacy unless all alternative to P are proved to be impossible.