What would falsify evolution?

Since everyone is nitpicking DT, I'll join in to

quote:

---

Finding any new species -- and there’s plenty out there to go find -- whose genetics was radically different to anything else. Specifically, some ‘higher’ organism, which in principle should be related to something already known, that has completely different genetics to the known species.

​

The utter non-matching of non-coding DNA between morphologically similar species. The coding stuff should be similar perhaps, because it builds similar bodies. But the non-coding stuff -- which is easily most of it -- has no reason to be similar.

---

This is perhaps a minor criticism but you can get such a disjunction of genetics and phylogeny relatively easily and frequently via horizontal gene transfer. A given sequence (even a very large sequence) will be more closely related to the organism from which it jumped than to the DNA of the organism that hosts it i.e. cyanobacterial sequences in the genome of Arabidopsis.Martin W, Rujan T, Richly E, Hansen A, Cornelsen S, Lins T, Leister D, Stoebe B, Hasegawa M, Penny D. Related Articles, Links
Evolutionary analysis of Arabidopsis, cyanobacterial, and chloroplast genomes reveals plastid phylogeny and thousands of cyanobacterial genes in the nucleus.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002 Sep 17;99(19):12246-51
If the jump is recent this will be even more pronounced. However, you would not find that the majority of the genome behaves this way and in most cases, it is pretty easy to figure out from where the transfer originated.However, if you sequenced an entire genome of a mammal, say pig and genomewide it was found to be more closely related to amphibians than other mammals, then evolution would get a big kick in the ass.