Scientific claims such as evolution are supposed to be falsifiable, meaning that they are claims where you could set out what observable outcomes would be impossible if the claim were true. But if any observable outcome can fit with evolution, then it is only pseudoscience.
So, to test if evolution is falsifiable or only pseudoscience, simply look at one well-known claim of the theory of evolution: the evolution from water to land.
To falsify this theory, there needs to be empirical evidence that contradicts it. According to the theory of evolution, it took nearly 80 million years to gradually transition from water to land. So is there observable evidence that contradicts this? Yes, these same "evolutionary" changes occur in a salamander:
But for a salamander, these "evolutionary" changes occur in only a matter of months or years, not millions of years. This repeatably observable contradiction invalidates the theory of evolution because the observable outcome differs by a factor of close to a billion (80 million years / 1 month = 960 million months).
And to further show how this is a dire problem for evolution, suppose that fossils of each of these stages of a salamander were found by scientists, but salamanders were extinct and had never been witnessed alive. Operating under the theory of evolution, a scientist would conclude that each stage evolved to the next stage over millions of years. This would lead to complete and utter falsehood, since neither of these stages are different species, rather, they are all the same species, and each stage did not take millions of years to change. And if neither of these clear contradictions and falsehoods falsify evolution, then evolution is clearly pseudoscience.
In pseudoscience, no matter what contradictory evidence is observed, it will still fit with the theory. And in order to let this fit with their theory, an evolutionist will say that this is only metamorphosis. And yet, the evolution of metamorphosis still remains a genuine biological mystery even today:
And evolution will never be able to truly explain metamorphosis because it is a clear contradiction. If evolution did in fact evolve metamorphosis, then it would no longer be constrained to gradual changes over millions of years. This is because evolution, by evolving and making metamorphosis possible, would have thus already evolved a way to make extremely quick changes and even completely abrupt change without the need for millions of years in between different species.
And to show how abrupt metamorphosis can be, look at a rhinoceros beetle: it changes from a grub to a beetle within its own lifetime.
There is almost no discernible similarity between the two. So if such changes can be this abrupt and this quick, evolution from species to species would not be constrained to taking place over millions of years or even constrained to being gradual where each new species still shares many similarities with its predecessor. But an evolutionist must ignore and deflect this, because acknowledging this clear contradiction would falsify evolution to anyone who is honest and who uses reason.
Ultimately, metamorphosis does indeed falsify evolution, and if it does not, then evolution is only a pseudoscience, because that means that even a clear contradiction is allowed to fit with the theory of evolution.
