I don't know what you mean by "observable", this sounds like Dawkins' sound-bite that people deride. That you can see an event you are proposing took place.
I mean one can look at evidence and see it yourself. Presently.
I am not saying I can see any event.
You can't prove logically, a relation between lifeforms from looking at events you can't observe.
Who cares about proving that logically? Almost everything we know cannot be proved logically. We can however, observe evidence, perform tests that confirm our ideas about that evidence, and make reasoned deductions about how that evidence came to be.
Let me show you an uncontroversial example. Based on
real events. Imagine you had a brother who was kidnapped when you were babies. And let us imagine someone comes to you later in life and claims to be your brother. Neither of you can 'look at events that you can't observe'. But you can look at evidence you can observe. Your physical similarities, and maybe behavioural similarities. These days, you can go further and test DNA. This was enough to settle the issue of the gypsy girl in the article I linked to.
If you were referring to inductive, fragmentary evidence, then what you are observing is extinct creatures that you propose were related.
I'm talking about extant life, not extinct life.
You're therefore equivocating with the term, "observable".
If the results of DNA tests are not observable, then please correct me.
You didn't answer my question about future events such as the weather.
™ Version 4.2
