Where is the best evidence macro evolution where one species changes into a higher one?

Question

As a Christain I know microevolution is a fact for the many different races of man covering all the earth and in many different countries is the best evidence of it. Especially since they all came from Noah and his sons after the flood. They are red, yellow, black and white and all precious in God's sight.

Answer 1

Are you confusing "micro evolution" with natural selection? It is not possible for one species to change into a different types of species. Just as it is not possible to cross-bread a dog with a cat. However, genetic adaptations or mutations within a species are possible and confirm what the Bible teaches. By the way, to say "many different races of man" is a misnomer. All human beings belong to the same species. There are variations of melanin (skin color) within our species but we are all of one race.

Answer 2

Microevolution implies evolution. It works something like this:

A species will have many different individuals, and they all have genes. Some of these individuals will separate from the others and produce a new "strain" or "race" or "variety". Different breeds of dogs are an example of this. These separate groups have different DNA from other groups; a collie has different genes from a dalmation, although their genes are similar enough that they can still interbreed.

As these groups become more and more different, though, they lose the ability to breed together. This is because they become so different that they can't mate any longer (for example, chihuahuas and great danes can't mate because of their size differences) or because their genes become so different that they are no longer compatible.

When the genes between two groups of animals become so different that they are incompatible, they may still able to mate, but their babies will be infertile or may not even be able to survive at all. If you breed a horse and a donkey, for example, you get a mule; the mule is infertile, though, because the genes of the horse and the donkey are so different.

Because these two groups are no longer able to produce fertile offspring together, the two populations can't mix their genes together to offset any differences, and so their genes become only more and more different with time. At some point, they become different species.

The species classification is completely arbitrary, though; groups of scientists are all the time classifying and reclassifying species and subspecies, because it's such a grey area. Sometimes the difference between species is obvious, like between cats and dogs, because their populations have been separated for so long that they are nothing alike. Other times it's really hard to tell, like between dogs and wolves, because they are still so similar in so many ways. It's just a matter of how closely related two groups of animals are.

Answer 3

Here is my list. There is more, I just tried to stick with the easy to understand ones. And change is change. There is no Micro or Macro evolution. If a creature is changing a little, give it a million years.

* Fossils - the order can be determined by stratification alone (no radiological dating) it is unarguable and life started simple and got more complex. Here is a simple chart to show what I mean: http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/fossils/succession.html
* Anatomical similarities between species.
* Chemical similarities between species.
* Mitochondrial DNA regressive studies. - This comes only from your mother and the only changes to it are through mutations. These mutations occur at a known rate, and converge world wide 150,000 years ago give or take. If Eve (6000 years ago) was the only female, it would be almost identical world wide. It is not. The flood gives a second bottleneck that matches the facts even less well.
* Geographic distribution of related species. Meaning related species are usually near each other.
* Wisdom Teeth - there isn't room on your jaw for them anymore.
* Your little toe - totally useless. Nice intellegent design here.
* Your appendix - totally useless now but it does digest cellulose in other species.
* Your inner eyelids - They don't even work now, but they do for lots of other animals like house cats. Bet you didn't even know you had 'em.
* Vestigial DNA - meaning chromosomes that we have but don't use, but that used in other species. We have several that other primates use but are totally useless to us.
* The fact that we share so much DNA among species
* There are no wild cows. They evolved through artificial selection and are totally man made.
* Different breeds of dogs, cats, livestock.
* Viruses and bacteria evolve quickly and you can actually see it. This is why you need a new flu shot every year.
* Your tail bone. It is even not that uncommon to be born with a tail.
* Goosebumps - this would be useful if we had fur because it fluffs it and make more insulation. For us it is worthless.
* The hair standing up on your neck when you are frightened. Animals use this to make themselves look bigger. Doesn't work when you walk upright and don't have fur.
* The fact that humans have gotten measurably and heritablely taller since the 1600s
* The fact that humans jaw have gotten measurably and heritablely smaller since the 1600s
* The fact that humans little toes have gotten measurably and heritablely smaller since the 1600s
* Human lower back problems. Your back is intelligently designed to have support from your shoulders.
* Transitional fossils - here is a list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

Answer 4

Start with the irrefutable evidence that different rock strata from different epochs since the Cambrian (and before) contain different ranges of fossil species. This has been known for hundreds of years, well before Darwin and Wallace elucidated the theory of natural selection as the mechanism for evolution.

There are two possible explanations for the appearance of the fossil record. Either new sets of species were spontaneously created for each epoch, or the newer species evolved from the earlier.

Occam's razor favours the second hypothesis, as does the vast body of scientific empirical evidence. Microevolution allows us to observe during brief periods of time what happens over longer stretches. Macroevolution is simply the accumulation of a lot of microevolution.

[Edit] neoczarina explains speciation very well below.

Answer 5

Creationists begrudgingly accept microevolution because they realized that Noah's Ark was in danger of capsizing under the weight of all those new species being discovered. Now they claim that God created distinct "kinds" of animals which Noah took ion the ark, and they "micro-evolved" into different species after the flood. But the argument falls out once you realize that the "kinds" they assign to animals are vague and arbitrary, and the "boundaries" they say evolution can't cross simply don't exist

Answer 6

Mules. Donkeys and horses can mate and produce offspring; they are genetically close enough for that. The offspring are not fertile; they are genetically too distant for that. (Once every 100 years or so there is a fertile mule; biology is not as exact as math.)

Despite what they tell you in Boy Scout Camp, rattle snakes and gopher snakes can't cross-breed and produce poisonous snakes with no rattles. Jackalopes (half jack rabbit, half antelope) are a myth too, even though every truck stop in Wyoming sells postcards of them.

A lust-crazed Maltese dog could mate with a house cat, but it would not produce any offspring, fertile or not.

The classic definition of a species is the ability to mate and produce fertile offspring. All the colors of man can do that. Cows and horses can't, so our dream of a beast that was rideable AND gave milk is shattered. The fact horses and donkeys can do half of it (mate and produce INfertile offspring) says that they are separate species, but not quite separate enough. They must have had a common ancestor. At some point in the future, mating a horse and a donkey will be as fruitless as mating a horse and a cow.

Answer 7

Check out the Frilled Shark.

You'll notice immediately two things. It looks almost exactly like an eel -- and yet, it's got six gill ridges, a shark trait.

The frilled shark is a transitional species where one part of the population became the eels, one part of the population split and became the sharks, and the remaining population found itself in environments where it was in homeostasis and thus didn't have to significantly change and so hasn't.

Answer 8

Here is a good one. It is a salamander, were as you move from one population to another, they can interbreed. But when you compare the first population to the last, they are separate species.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_05.html

Answer 9

Best evidence for that is the fact that we can't cure the common cold because there's more then a thousands new strains each year.

Answer 10

-headdesk-

Noah was Middle-Eastern and humans couldn't have changed that much in less than 5,000 years.

Best evidence: archaeopteryx