A way to test Evolution

[Ubu]

As a genuine scientific theory, Evolution can in principle undergo empirical check and be corrected or disproven if facts happen to contradict it.

Thus, if we discover a new species of animal, we can expect to find it close to species that resemble it (biogeography).

We can also expect to find in it DNA like in any other species for they all come from a common ancestor.

If we get to another planet where there are complex lifeforms, we expect to find simpler and simpler fossils of lifeforms as we get deeper in geological layers.

Sometimes, useless structures (I don't know how to translate from French "structures vestigiales") are put forward as a proof of Evolution, but I am cautious about it. It seems to me very hard to say that a structure has no purpose at all. Such a move would look like an argument from ignorance.

To specify a last point, if Evolution happens to be disproven, it will NOT be a proof of creation, for creation is NOT a scientific theory.

[mith]

Ok....been stated before, sorry

[Skeletor Rinpoche]

Hey, as long as you didn't copy that from a different source(although the ideas were stated well over one hundred years ago) it is still a good method and should not be condemned.

[rob3]

Hey,
Vestigial structures is probably an accurate translation. What about the stumps on a horse's lower legs; what other explanation of them could there be apart from "leftovers" of a horses "fingers" (the picture in the link is not very clear, but I can assure you that if you look at a horse's skeleon, they do exist)

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/crea ... eries.html

[Schröder]

There was actually an experiment done in my home country that actually showed evolution taking place over a span of about 5 years only. The result was the change in size of the species. It's a very popular example.