Nah, you're completely incorrect. Check out the catholic encyclopedia entry (bold is mine) :
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm
Finally, Transubstantiation differs from every other substantial conversion in this, that only the substance is converted into another the accidents remaining the same just as would be the case if wood were miraculously converted into iron, the substance of the iron remaining hidden under the external appearance of the wood.
[...]
Such, at least, was the opinion of contemporary theologians regarding the matter; and the Roman Catechism, referring to the above-mentioned canon of the Council of Trent, tersely, explains: "The accidents of bread and wine inhere in no substance, but continue existing by themselves."
The accidents vs substance language is how the doctrine is and has been typically explained for over 800 years; Trent doesn't say it precisely that way because they were trying to avoid writing Aristotle/Thomas Aquinas' philosophy into dogma.
The doctrine is completely non-falsifiable by science as the bread remains tasting exactly like bread, behaving physically exactly like bread, etc. There is no scientific or experimental test, according to the doctrine, which could determine it to be anything other than bread. So this really has nothing to do with science at all.