Hubby, that's clearly a joke from a creationist, since it's unrelated to scientists as the rest of the world knows them...

You *cannot* "prove" the theory of evolution, any more than you can "prove" the theory of gravity. All you can do is come up with hypotheses which more closely fit the observed facts than previous hypotheses. A hypothesis which fits facts closely is called a theory.

Gravity-wise, the Christian Bible said (and still says) that the Earth is the centre of the universe. Observed facts (mostly by sailors) made it clear this wasn't the case, and the theory of gravity pissed on the Church's fire big-time, because denying the evidence isn't a good long-term strategy. Some observations then didn't fit with Newtonian gravity, and Einstein got a better version. Some observations today don't fit with Einstein, so a new theory to cover those is likely to appear sometime in our lifetimes (string theory is the current favourite).

Evolution-wise, the Christian Bible said (and still says) that every creature was created as-is. Darwin said it ain't so. Darwin's theory wasn't perfect, but recent revisions have made it clearer. The state of genetics is such that only someone who's never heard of genetics can deny that evolution happens. The Catholic Church learnt from its previous hiding, and the latest John Paul wisely chose a non-confrontational position by declaring that the Bible could be allegorical ("The Bible says how to live, not how life came to be").

Auggie, as for an example of evolution, there are two really good ones. Darwin's finches are the classic, but the changes are still pretty small in the finches - one type of small bird to another type of small bird isn't really visible. A better example is cichlids (especially in Lake Malawi). Whales aren't a bad example either, given that a reasonable continuity of fossil evidence exists from marine mammals with 4 limbs, through marine mammals with atrophied limbs, to what you see today.

Graham.