Sure you can prove micro evolution

Now prove macro evolution, evolution from one species to another.  Are frogs the only thing you can use to say aquatic things moved on land?

pedro pilia
 
looking for some pedo anime kodomo no jikan or ichigo mashimaro style to fap furiously please

it's the same damn thing

just over millions of years

>>1
Whales, faggot (although that was land to water).

LUNGS TRANSFORM TO TAKE IN WATER
CLOAKED IN SCALES, WE SWIM ON AND ON

>>1
You can't prove it because it isn't real.
Don't bother with these clowns.

Lol people accepting small changes over small time-scales but refusing to accept large changes over large ones.
GG creationists.

Anyway, look into ring species. Try Wikipedia, if you must.

We see chimpanzees and apes today, but no neanderthals or homo erectus living today.  Did they really all die out due to natural selection?  They would seem hardy enough to survive in small communities.  Why don't chimps and apes display more mutations that would indicate progressing towards humans, such as upright or hairless chimps, or variations of chimps that resemble one of several stages in evolution, rather than still being the same species we branched from 5 million years ago?     

Ring species show changes in similar organisms like birds, but not a change from one kingdom or class to another.  Why say we are descended from chimps if chimps are descended from something earlier?  If we can trace the evolutionary tree of mammals back to something like mammal-like reptiles, why not say we came from Sauropsida or prior?    

>>8
When two species share the same niche, it's not that unusual for one to drive the other into complete extinction.

You'd be surprised how many similarities there are between humans and other apes. You have a point (albeit an unintentional one) when you say it's odd humans are relatively hairless, but that's neatly explained when you realise humans are neotenous apes.
And as for the walking upright bit, most apes can walk upright for brief periods of time. They don't generally walk upright all the time because they don't have to. Different habitats and all.

>>9
Ring species show changes in similar organisms like birds, but not a change from one kingdom or class to another.
If you're expecting a mammal to evolve into a fungus, you're out of luck.
That's very much like pointing out that on any given old tree, all the growth happens on the twig level, and nobody's ever seen large boughs being added.

Why say we are descended from chimps if chimps are descended from something earlier?
The only people who say biologists claim humans descended from chimps are creationists.

If we can trace the evolutionary tree of mammals back to something like mammal-like reptiles, why not say we came from Sauropsida or prior?
We share a common ancestor with all other species on the planet, which is pointed out often enough. It's just that right now, we are apes, and the closest ancestor we share with the species we most recently diverged along with (chimpanzees) was an ape as well.
Creationists in particular like to make a big deal out of this because they feel it personally offends them. I would surmise this is because of inbreeding.

Anyway: http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

>>10

Thank you, this kind of site is what I was imagining with several other topics- what if someone took every claim made about something, categorized it, cited sources of these claims, and responded with claims with citations and references.  This can apply to biblical claims, conspiracy theories, paranormal and supernatural claims, etc.  But will enough people change their mind when the facts are presented, and will it be worth the effort to refute every claim made by people who don't subscribe to rationality in the first place?

>>11
The target isn't necessarily the creationist making the claim, but the lurkers that are on the fence. If one person realises creationism is bullshit because of it, I think it's worth it.

And if nothing else, you generally learn something new yourself.

>>1
If I must, I will get out my biology texts later on to find some examples that are actually good, but we already observe new species appearing on a daily basis.

One example is that certain plants can produce offspring that cannot reproduce by mating with other offspring of the parent species.  However, they can still reproduce with each other.

In addition, a mule is neither a horse nor a donkey. 

Right, species change, but the entire evolutionary tree shows new kingdoms and classes branching off, such as mammals coming from reptiles, with "mammal-lie reptiles" as an example.  Why would a reptile develop mammary glands, softer skin, and fur while losing its thicker skin and reptilian features?  Why don't we have lizard people?  Given a few hundred million years, we should have a greater chance of more humanoids arising out of common animals, just as it is in the imagination of furries.  It's not an inevitability, but it is possible, given evolution, for these creatures to turn upright, toolbearing with opposable thumbs, and intelligent, but we haven't seen anything close to that yet, as animals are still dumb.  You would think more animals would develop their own culture and society, and with it language.  You would also expect new kingdoms and classes to eventually emerge, such as scaled or feathered mammals, or some other mutation to hint at an upcoming branch of something completely different, not just a species.  Why not let more of our own mutations breed, such as those that survive harlequin fetus syndrome into adulthood, creating a race of thick skinned humans, or that weird horn growth some people get, or more futanari people.  I want to see more successful mutations to create more crazy organisms that can rule in their own little environment and vow to conquer human life.

>>14
Why would a reptile develop mammary glands, softer skin, and fur while losing its thicker skin and reptilian features?
You know, Mendel discovered genetics long before Darwin came up with evolution.
Random mutations being fixed by natural selection. It's not that hard to grasp.

Given a few hundred million years, (...) and with it language.
You seem to be under the impression human beings are optimally suited to living on Earth (as if Earth were a uniform biotope, with only a single niche to fill), and every other species could benefit from being more like us.
Do you really need someone to spell out why this is bullshit?

Human-like intelligence is a massive investment, and not that much of an advantage over competitors in most circumstances. It's not at all surprising most species just haven't bothered.

There are no real advantages to walking upright in most circumstances, and very real disadvantages, as the widespread back pains in humans show.

Not to mention the fact that the niche humans occupy is already filled. By humans. Any other species trying to encroach at this point would quickly be outcompeted.

You would also expect new kingdoms and classes to eventually emerge
As per >>10, that's very much like pointing out that on any given old tree, all the growth happens on the twig level, and nobody's ever seen large boughs being added.

such as those that survive harlequin fetus syndrome into adulthood
Do you even have the slightest clue what harlequin fetus syndrome is?
One girl survived until she was nine years old. There are six other known cases of them surviving for longer than a few weeks. Out of tens of thousands.
They don't die because they're put out of their misery, or because of shitty medical treatment. They die because they aren't viable.

I want to see more successful mutations to create more crazy organisms that can rule in their own little environment and vow to conquer human life.
Yes, congratulations, you want a eugenicist playground because you lack foresight and imagination, as well as a basic understanding of what you're dealing with. Fortunately for the rest of us, there is such a thing as ethics, and laws exist to prevent it.
This also has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of evolution.