You don’t “confirm” it. It’s an attempt to describe a system/outcome. It’s a model of a system, not the system itself and no model is perfect, because all models are our attempt to understand and describe things, and there is no such thing as perfect understanding.
However, it’s a highly accurate model, that explains things very well. So, either we will find that one day, we make a brand new, better model (this seems unlikely given the accuracy of the current model, but possible). Or, more likely, we continue to come to a better understanding of the system, and improve the model we use to describe it.
cattywampas@lemm.ee 2 days ago
You can do it yourself and see it firsthand. You can breed plants and artificially select the traits you want to see in future generations.
NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 2 days ago
But that’s Mendel, not Darwin.
A different flavor of ice cream doesn’t make a wholly new dessert.
cattywampas@lemm.ee 2 days ago
Mendel’s experiments are a lot easier to recreate on your own than Darwin’s observations at Galapagos. And that’s what good science is all about.
mez@lemmy.world 2 days ago
atom to humans?
bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de 2 days ago
Evolution does not describe how life came to be in the first place. That is still a mystery. It only explains how different species formed over billions of years.
So not atoms to humans but single cells to humans.
scytale@lemm.ee 2 days ago
You can read about Abiogenesis.