Do you have any links to these experiments?
-
I think your question simplifies it too much. There is 150 years of research supporting the theory, but in the end, it's too complex to be boiled down to a simple science-fair level experiment.
The evidence is too extensive to list here, but the Lenski experiment is a good example. It set out to see how E. coli would evolve to harness a new food source. It took 20 years, but eventually it was able to, and it happened in parallel studies using different biochemical pathways. It didn't set out specifically to test if evolution was true or not, but if evolutionwas incorrect, then the experiment wouldn't have worked.
Check out the other links below. They're all cited sources, so if you can track down the original sources, you'll be able to find the experiments and supporting evidence. Anyone who claims that there is no evidence is simply wrong (closing one's eyes to the evidence, or not making an effort to understand it does not mean there is no evidence). Likewise, some people claim that it's not falsifiable, which is also incorrect. A fossil out of place in the geological record, or one species giving birth to another (as presented in the creationist straw-man version of evolution) would solidly disprove the theory. Just because it hasn't happened yet, and just because it's exceedingly unlikely doesn't mean the theory is unfalsifiable.
The evidence is too extensive to list here, but the Lenski experiment is a good example. It set out to see how E. coli would evolve to harness a new food source. It took 20 years, but eventually it was able to, and it happened in parallel studies using different biochemical pathways. It didn't set out specifically to test if evolution was true or not, but if evolutionwas incorrect, then the experiment wouldn't have worked.
Check out the other links below. They're all cited sources, so if you can track down the original sources, you'll be able to find the experiments and supporting evidence. Anyone who claims that there is no evidence is simply wrong (closing one's eyes to the evidence, or not making an effort to understand it does not mean there is no evidence). Likewise, some people claim that it's not falsifiable, which is also incorrect. A fossil out of place in the geological record, or one species giving birth to another (as presented in the creationist straw-man version of evolution) would solidly disprove the theory. Just because it hasn't happened yet, and just because it's exceedingly unlikely doesn't mean the theory is unfalsifiable.
-
There are no "evolution tests or experiments. There is only observation of fossil records and comparative anatomy, DNA comparisons and genetics.
There is no other viable competing "scientific" theory. I suppose radioisitope dating can be considered a test of the age of fossils. But the tests themselves set only approximate and relative dates to fossil evidence.
Darwin observed that finches and other animals changed to take advantage of their environment. he could not explain how those changes happened (genetic mutations) or how those successful changes were passsed to successive generations (DNA).
There is no other viable competing "scientific" theory. I suppose radioisitope dating can be considered a test of the age of fossils. But the tests themselves set only approximate and relative dates to fossil evidence.
Darwin observed that finches and other animals changed to take advantage of their environment. he could not explain how those changes happened (genetic mutations) or how those successful changes were passsed to successive generations (DNA).
keywords: see,evolution,if,to,is,true,scientists,have,tests,done,What,What tests have scientists done to see if evolution is true