I can prove evolution and disprove evolution....it's kind of easy because the mere word "evolution" is merely a description of change over time and that's a vagery I can jock about a lot. First I show no change over time...then I show circular change over time and brush upon how one might go about arguing "two are merely one and the same". The showings are examples of no evolution and null evolution. Then I talk about evolutions theories being falsifiable and thus scientific. I then provide examples of how say "math" is not necessarily a good measure of the language of science...it's just the "map" of reality.
Disproving evolution...finding a Devonian rabbit. Well, I have a mold of a skull of a "fox" from the Permian. It's almost Devonian and almost a rabbit. I recall it is called "Dvina", by those who sold it to me after I saw the original in the travelling display case guarded by very cross looking dosants.
Does that mold count as a, "Devonian Rabbit"? Not much change over time when I saw it. The thing is pretty rabbit like. or is our modern day rabbit a flashback to some older proto-mammalian example?
As to the larger issue of there being scientific theory of evolution...Let me attempt a hypothetical falsification based on lack of sufficient morphological change in say 240 million years...and lots of rock layers.
I say, there probably were "rabbits" a long time ago...at least in the Permian. We just haven't found them yet. (Devonian...nah...give up...it is a stretch. You can barely find anything in the Devonian that has lungs). Anyway...the skull mold I have is something I bought from a travelling show of Russian fossils from Perm. It's almost a rabbit. I set it side by side with a raccoon skull and claim they are the "same". It confuses my friends who can't imagine the Permian or convergent evolution. There are differences for sure...but me putting them next to each other isn't very fair. I'm showing off.
What I show is mere circular evolution suggesting that evolution is a myth...certainly a contradiction in those who believe exclusively in "progressive" evolution. Convergent evolution does indeed happen. So...there is this niche thing that critters keep finding themselves going back to and occupying. God makes these "Gardens of Eden" and critters keep finding them and getting kicked out. Last time it was because we decided to think for ourselves...AND be immortal. God does not seem to tolerate both....so now we are mortal.
Anyway evolution is kind of like history. It's there but it's not there. Evolution is largely a historical reconstruction. It is barely scientific. The only way to show discovery is evolutionary is subject the sets to "falsification" (the real/Kuhn test of science) is if somebody else can try and go out and find more. If they can't be found...the discovery is NOT scientific.
Is this math? Nope...math is merely a map of what is. Is it a theory...yup. The acid test is if somebody else can actually find the same evolutionary pair thing a long way away. See...evolution has it's math (organizing methodology)...but it's graphic...map like..
FYI.. Real math-like studies of evolution are usually mere statistical comparisons of populations....in the same "layer" of rock and in different layers of rock. I'm not buying into statistics when we have GOD to consider. Recall the "God does not play with dice" statement by Mr. Einstein.
OK...back to the rabbit. My comparison is basically my pulling a rabbit out of a Devonian hat. Maybe someone will find a Permian skull that is more rabbit-like and we can call it LagoDvinia and we can say there were "rabbits" long ago because they pretty much do the same thing. Eat and hop about. Genetically and morphologically they may be pretty different but...functionally, if two critters walk like rabbits and talk alike....well they are effectively rabbits...I guess and presto...evolution isn't.
Can we go the other way...prove evolution happens. Well...that's hard because fossils don't talk much...and because of this problem of geographic time. What happens vertically in a rock succession is a manifestation of what is occurring laterally. We are reading a book by nibbling at the edges of the pages of book chapters scattered all about creation. Macro-evolution is what we decipher from those nibbles. Heck...now we don't even think dinosaurs are extinct. Sheesh.
It's hard to keep these discussions on track because the language useage in most questions is kind of vague.
So..does the Devonian rabbit used to predict the demise of evolution have to be a true lagomorpha to be a rabbit or can it be just a teensy bit different....like being totally dead, 240 million years older and 5,000 miles away...(it being Russian and all).
I say evolution is god's way of making us humble. The hammer of God "mantle plume" that popped out of the earth during the end Permian that trashed the world is a darn good Noah prequel. As the bigger issue...there being no so called scientific theory of evolution. I disagree. There is certainly a theory...trouble is that it hasn't been codified into a law too well...unless you understand the laws of superposition and stratigraphic correlation and read the "works of god" manifest before us...not just the mere "words of god"...sacrilege as it may sound.