There is no scientific evidence to support evolution

As con, I will argue that the statement "There is no scientific evidence for evolution", where evolution is meant to be common descent. As such, I am to show that there is indeed scientific evidence for common descent. In order to do so, I will briefly explain how evidence works in scientific methodology, and then apply that the the hypothesis of common descent.On the nature of evidenceA scientific hypothesis is an explanation of a one or more phenomenon which makes testable predictions, and this hypothesis can be tested by checking to see if its predictions align with what we observe. The results of checking predictions to reality is known as evidence. For example, Einstein won his Nobel Prize for his work on the photoelectric effect[1], and his hypothesis predicted that the light reflected off metal had quantiased energy. The subsequent confirmation of this prediction experimentally acted as confirmatory evidence Einstein was correct, and would have falsified his theory if not found (falsification is critical[2]). So, parallelising this, I will show predictions of common descent that have been confirmed by evidence, fulfilling my burden of proof. Note that to fulfill my BoP, I do not need to show that common descent is certain due to the evidence, simply that ANY evidence of commen descent exists.What is common descentFrom Wikipedia: "In evolutionary biology, a group of organisms share common descent if they have a common ancestor. There is strong evidence that all living organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor, called the last universal ancestor or LUA (or last universal common ancestor, LUCA)."Predictions and tests of common descentGenetic predictionsA prediction of common descent is that all organisms share a similar genetic heritage, and that genetic similarities should increase the closer in the phylogenic tree two species are. Common descent would be falsified if phylogenically close species (ranked by other methods, such as transitional fossils) did not have this genetic similarity, and thus finding evidence of these genetic similarites is scientific evidence for common descent [4]. Furthermore, even Universal Comment Ancestry can be evaluated statistically, as shown in the citations supplied here [5][6][7]. Another genetic test would be that of retroviruses, that inject their DNA into the host's. Common descent would predict that descendent species would inherit this foreign and non-functioning DNA, and this prediction is of course confirmed many times over in the scientific field [8][9][10][11]. Unfortunately I am pressed for letters, so to move on.Biological predictionsCommon descent also predicts that evolutionary features found in ancestors should be passed onto descendent species. Vestigial features are a good example of this, where features from ancestors are found in descendents that would not be expected to be seen if common descent was not true. The famous example is the laryngeal nerve (especially in giraffes, as its poor evolution means they can only grunt), confirm this prediction resoundingly [12]. Another example would be the vestigal legs in whales [13].Fossil predictionsCommon descent of course predicts that a descendent species should not occur before its ancestor, giving rise to the famous "Precambrian rabbit" in which biologist J.B.S Haldane said a rabbit in the precambrian (before mammals evolved) would completely falsify evolution. Of course, the fossil record does not have a precambrian rabbit, and shows clear pathways of evolutionary development. It is hard to cite a single article for this, so I direct to the modern cetaceans on Wikipedia, which has an article littered with intermediate species and fossils found [14].ConclusionCommon descent makes predictions that have been confirmed through scientific investigation. I want to keep going on the predictions, as there are thousands more, but enough books have been written on the topic already![1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://phylointelligence.com...[5] http://www.nature.com...[6] http://www.nature.com...[7] http://news.nationalgeographic.com...[8] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[9] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[10] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[11] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[12] Page 42 and 224 http://books.google.com.au...[13] Page 69 http://www.amazon.com...[14] http://en.wikipedia.org...;