K. Here are a few, organized by which item they're meant to support:
1. Grab some DNA from a population of wild rabbits. Next generation, do it again. Rinse and repeat a few times, then compare your results and see if the genes changed between generations.
2. Toss a fast-reproducing animal (guppies are my standard example, I know this has been done with guppies) into a moderately different environment from the one it came from. Leave for a few generations, then come back and see if the population as a whole has shifted to become better-adapted to its new environment.
3. Using fossils, genetic markers, and whatever means are available, statistically reconstruct a bunch of different trees describing the paths of descent by which modern life might have come into being. See if these trees match fairly well, or at least if they indicate a coherent, central pattern that may be blurred by other factors.
I say this a lot, but it bears repeating: please don't respond that experiment 3 has been performed and has failed to pan out. I disagree, and that's an issue for another thread. The point here is simply that there exists an experiment which can be performed. That's all you asked for, and it's all that can be reasonably expected of a bare-bones definition of a theory.
I find it odd that you ask for a theory, scoff at evolutionists for being unable to produce one, and then when I actually give you a theory, you say I'm "cluttering up the thread." I'm not asking you to construct a theory from my scraps; I gave you a complete and working, if minimal, theory in response to your request.
Thanks. I forgot about that bit somehow - those posts really clear up my side question.
I find this claim puzzling. Could you describe for me a system of beliefs which incorporates all of the above and still does not count as evolutionist? Denying abiogenesis would not work, since abiogenesis deals with the origin as opposed to the development of life; there are evolutionists who believe that "God made the first life form and all life evolved from that common ancestor," even if that's not the majority view.
In summary, I've given you an experiment which could be applied to each of my three items, and despite your assertion to the contrary, I maintain that anyone who believes all three items is an evolutionist (it shouldn't be hard to provide me at least one counter-example if this is not true). Do I need to do anything else to prove that my theory is indeed a working one?
Here is another experiment where evolution has great predictive power.
1. Go to 100 random spots in the world that have fossil material and perform radiometric dating. Use one of the techniques described here in Table 1 depending on the rough date range and the material used.
2. Make sure that that the date is appropriate for the method (e.g. a meaningful date for Carbon dating is between about 200 and 30,000 years). Other methods have other date ranges that provide meaningful answers. Repeat this process several times to see if the date is reliable (in most places it is).
3. From the date that you get, grab a book on paleontology and predict the kinds of fossil material that you find and predict the kind that you will not find.
4. Pick up any creationist book and use that to predict the kinds of fossil material that you find and the kind that you will not find.
This is the general approach leads to accurate predictions (it is the basis of paleontology). The approach has also led to the discovery of new transitional fossils. Neil Shubin went off to a specific place in the arctic that had rocks from fresh water streams that had dated from at 375 million years. They were looking for animals that bridged the transition between fish and tretrapod. They found Tiktaalik where their theory predicted the fossils could be found.
This next year they are going to visiting rocks between 370 million and 365 million years in an attempt to find fossils of animals closer to the tetrapod end of the transition. There are no guarantees, but these sorts of predictions have been made hundreds of times and I'll bet the success is better than any creationist model out there. Anyone want to predict what they will find this year?