i just saying that we cant prove that a banana and a cat share a common descent. this is a belief.
Outside of maths and logic, we can't prove anything.
What science does is collect data, create hypotheses that explain that data, test the predictions of the hypotheses, collect more data, refine the hypotheses, and so on.
The evidence that bananas and cats share common descent is not just a belief. It is a very, very, well supported scientific hypotheses that has been put through rigorous testing and has emerged with flying colours. Such that it can no longer be reasonably denied.
If you feel that the evidence for common descent of all life on earth is insufficient, then could you please explain why it is insufficient. In a way that shows that you do actually know what this evidence is and that you understand it. (See, e.g.,
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent) If you don't demonstrate that you know and understand your evidence, then your objections are meaningless.
2) evolution isnt scientific since we cant test it.
This is completely wrong. Evolution can and has been tested, and continues to be tested. The strongest test that the theory of evolution has been put to has been the genetic and biochemical knowledge that we have gained after the theory of evolution was first created. We can use this information to make other predictions that can be tested. E.g. the time when various common ancestors would have lived, that we can then search for (and find!) in rocks as fossils. The theory of evolution can be tested, and often is, by computer modelling to show that the consequences of the theory are what they should be. And on and on.
In this very forum, PsychoSarah is doing an experiment to show that a population of triops, undergoing selection pressure, can change over time. That's evolution being tested right there.
What scientific theory can you name that has been tested more than evolution, and can you explain why it has been tested more than evolution?
prove it. show us how we can falsify evolution.
If we start discovering rocks from the Permian that contain rabbit fossils, and then find large numbers of out of order fossils, then evolution would be falsified.
If the genetic code of living things had not been compatible with evolution, then that would have falsified evolution.
If we noticed that new creatures started appearing out of nowhere with no ancestors, then this would be strong evidence against evolution being the explanation for all living things. So, that would partially falsify evolution.
One of the difficulties of falsifying evolution from this point on is that many of the experiments/tests that could falsify it have already been done. E.g. the genetic testing, really extensive investigation of fossils and the rocks they are found in, and evolution is supported by all of these. But, that doesn't stop the theory being falsifiable. It just means that it hasn't been falsified.
Note: I predict that you will have no valid retort to this, but you will simply go on claiming that evolution cannot be falsified.