I gave a very detailed explanation of how the theory of evolution places a very strong framework to explain the diversity of life, using the example of how different plants and animals fill the same ecological niches in two different regions of the world which are actually very similar. And how the story of creation completely fails to explain why the biome of each desert is so different.
I think that you are very aware that it is impossible to take one isolated fact and use it to prove anything. So you set up the task for me to produce one isolated fact (I.e. data element) that cannot exist outside of evolution, when you know very well that no one can provide your "proof."
All I can do, of course, is look at the body of knowledge--consisting of countless facts and analysis--and ask whether the theoretical framework is sufficient to provide order and meaning to the data set. And what do I have to work with here? One, the theory of evolution, which has existed since at least the ancient Greeks,and has been refined continuously since then. Two, the creation stories out of the Bible, which are not internally consistent, not consistent with each other, and provide no conceptual framework with which to understand the biome. And three, the distorted mishmash of Lamarck's theory of evolution (poorly described, at that) and the biblical creation stories that is spouted by the likes of Ken Ham and his ilk.
Since the real goal of the creationist is to try to discredit the theory of evolution so that people embrace some form of creationism by default, the only thing I can do is to take a set of facts and compare which conceptual framework best supports them. Within that context, the question becomes very straightforward. Does the creation story explain why two very similar deserts have utterly different biomes? No, because implicit in the creation story is the idea that life is invariable. God is perfect, hence life is perfect, hence two very similar deserts should have very similar biomes. And the corollary to that is that there should be no variability when members of a species are observed in different parts of the world. The deer I saw in Mongolia should have been identical to the deer I see waiting to jump in front of cars in the US. But they weren't. They were bigger, had different coat patterns, were extremely wary, and showed no sign of the suicidal tendencies of American deer. Does the garbled mix of distorted elements of evolutionary theory and creation story give an acceptable theoretical framework to the data set? No, and it is not worth pursuing that further, since the creationist hucksters make up stuff that is neither biblical nor scientific. Now, is the difference in biome between two similar but geographically distant deserts adequately conceptualized within the framework of evolutionary theory? Yes, very nicely. And the simplest reason for that is that the theory of evolution allows for change over time--in fact, that is the definition of evo!ution.
If you want to "disprove" the theory of evolution (the theory of change over time), all you have to do is demonstrate that samples of flora or fauna collected from identical environments in disparate regions of the world are, in fact, genetically identical and that it is impossible to construct phylogeny trees that would show any meaningful differences due to geographical distances.
Seriously, the way that creationists "argue" reminds me a lot of the way Democrats campaign. No facts on your side, so you try to discredit the other side. That's not an intellectual argument.
I didn’t intend to make you so defensive.
The theory of evolution claims there is change over time. But it doesn’t demonstrate speciation.
If God is who Christians claim he is, then it’s entirely consistent with simple logic to state he can create two similar environments each containing unique forms of life.