"If an example of such a thing was found in the fossil record it would falsify the explaination."
You mean like a Duck-Billed Platypus?
"The constraint also produces a tree of descent. If the fossil record did not match a tree of descent then that would falsify the explaination."
Or they would just call it "convergent evolution". Oh wait, that's what is happening already.
"For example finding a modern mammal fossil in the cambrian would falsify the mammal tree of descent"
Or an ad-hoc explanation such as "reworking" would be invoked.
"and through that falsify the explaination that mammals descended via the natural mechanisms of evolution."
Or would you just reconstruct the tree?
"If genetic comparisons of living species do not fit a nested heirarchy then that would falsify the explaination."
That's interesting, because they don't.
"There are many other ways that evolution can be tested, for example the naturalistic explaination puts the constraint that new types of animal must originate in the same location as the type they derived from."
I'm pretty sure there are counterexamples of that, too, but I'll have to double-check.
That isn't composed of parts of many seperate species. The bill of the duck-billed platypus only appears like a ducks, it is made out of different material and performs a different function.
"The constraint also produces a tree of descent. If the fossil record did not match a tree of descent then that would falsify the explaination."
Or they would just call it "convergent evolution". Oh wait, that's what is happening already.
Convergant evolution does not violate a tree shape - it does not mean that branches on the tree converge. An example of convergent evolution is that a good hunting design favours a wolf-like shape. Both marcupial and placental mammal populations therefore independently converged on a wolf-like design that was best adapted to this niche. However even though the form of both designs is similar, they are made of different parts, and are more closely related to their placental and marcupial counterparts than one another. Hence they remain different branches on the tree.
"For example finding a modern mammal fossil in the cambrian would falsify the mammal tree of descent"
Or an ad-hoc explanation such as "reworking" would be invoked.
A modern mammal fossil in the cambrian would turn the tree on its head. It wouldn't be a tree anymore, but a warped kind of net. Evolution would therefore be falsified as a good explaination for the diversity of life.
"and through that falsify the explaination that mammals descended via the natural mechanisms of evolution."
Or would you just reconstruct the tree?
If the tree were reconstructed to accomodate a modern mammal fossil in the cambrian, it would no longer be a tree.
"If genetic comparisons of living species do not fit a nested heirarchy then that would falsify the explaination."
That's interesting, because they don't.
an example?
"There are many other ways that evolution can be tested, for example the naturalistic explaination puts the constraint that new types of animal must originate in the same location as the type they derived from."
I'm pretty sure there are counterexamples of that, too, but I'll have to double-check.
In general you will find that island species resemble species on nearby mainlands. Remote islands tend to only be populated by types animals that could get there, and since then they have diverged. The Hawaiian islands are a good example.