Yes, so instead we watch organisms that have very short generation lengths, and watch them change over observable time frames either by small or large amounts. (i.e. bacteria evolving to become resistant to antibiotics) Which we have done numerous times. We also look at evolution experiments we have been running unknowingly for thousands of years - domestication of animals. We have through selection bred dogs to be massively different in size, height, temperament..etc.DanDeFool said:My academic advisor has a similar problem with evolution. Evolutionary theories about speciation and how we went from basic chemistry to complex life aren't falsifiable, because the underlying mechanisms they represent are supposed to operate over time frames that are too long to conduct experiments over.Sharpiez said:Evolution works like that in what we have observed.
Or do you think that everything in evolution only happens because one person mutated blue eyes, and had a bunch of babies? Or do you think it happens gradually? So we'll have a nub within the next 1 million years that'll turn in to an arm?
Doesn't matter. We can't prove any of it.
Even if we could design a million-year experiment to test evolutionary theories, there's no guarantee that there will be any humans around to see the experiment completed.
Given an even longer time frame we could develop them into even more distinct animals with even crazier differences if we desired it.
We also look back at the fossil record and find fossils that we can see are intermediate forms or current species. Finally we look at and compare DNA, using it to see how closely related two organisms are. The results all match up very well and give a very accurate picture of the evolutionary 'tree'.