I'm a layperson. Maybe this makes sense to you, but it is greek to me. What about biogeographical correlations consistent with evolution? Evidence drawn from very different arenas of inquiry contributes to the theory.
So? Doesn't prove animals evolved. The hallmark of any good theory is that it makes very specific predictions. Here's an example of such a specific prediction from one of my links: "An animal's bones contain oxygen atoms from the water it drank while growing. And, fresh water and salt water can be told apart by their slightly different mixture of oxygen isotopes. (This is because fresh water comes from water that evaporated out of the ocean. Lighter atoms evaporate more easily than heavy ones do, so fresh water has fewer of the heavy atoms.) Therefore, it should be possible to analyze an aquatic creature's bones, and tell whether it grew up in fresh water or in the ocean. This has been done, and it worked. We can distinguish the bones of river dolphins from the bones of killer whales. Now for the prediction. We have fossils of various early whales. Since whales are mammals, evolution predicts that they evolved from land animals. And, the very earliest of those whales would have lived in fresh water, while they were evolving their aquatic skills. (Skills such as the ability to do without fresh water.) Therefore, the oxygen isotope ratios in their fossils should be like the isotope ratios in modern river dolphins.
Any other possible explanation for this? Such as the animals in questioned drank from the same water source? Where is the proof that an animal evolved into a different species? No, we don't know what the next 150 years will bring, but the general pattern of scientific achievement has been that theories have refined and perfected rather than completely replaced - evolution appears to be falling into that pattern.
And people who once swore that the Sun revolved around the Earth had thousands of years of "proof" for their position. They were wrong. It's been measured, and the prediction was correct. The two oldest species in the fossil record - Pakicetus and Ambulocetus - lived in fresh water. Rodhocetus, Basilosaurus and the others all lived in salt water."
It's been measured, and the prediction was correct. The two oldest species in the fossil record - Pakicetus and Ambulocetus - lived in fresh water. Rodhocetus, Basilosaurus and the others all lived in salt water.
Of course, that's why the whole body of evidence must be considered together.
Science doesn't work in "proofs", in works with evidence to build working models - and that is exactly what evolution is. If enough evidence comes along that can't fit to the model's predictions, it's a sign something is wrong with the model - but that hasn't happened to evolution yet.
What would, in your mind, be convincing evidence that life evolved on earth? (With all due respect, I think there's a lot more evidence than you realize - a lot of it does take a while to learn to understand.)