1.) Evolution does NOT necessarily dictate that animals (or plants, or fungi, or whatever you fancy) must evolve into something more complex. If all animals over the size of cockroaches were wiped out tomorrow, that would be a form of evolution: the Cockroaches and smaller animals would be the surviving species, and "Survival of the Fittest" (a common saying used in evolution) would hold true.
2.) Evolution does NOT, I repeat NOT suggest that humans "magically appeared from crawling fish". Evolution takes time. HUGE amounts of time. We're talking about half a billion years here (~500,000,000)for the total evolution from the first protochordates into the modern Homo sapiens. Not a couple days. Not even a couple centuries. This time span is so long that it's often hard to comprehend. The changes were gradual, as some random "mistakes" in our DNA made some animals better able to adapt, and others not as able to adapt. It is NOT like throwing sand in the air and having it come down as a sand castle. It is, however, like sprinkling little tiny bits of sand here and there - sometimes a grain at a time - and eventually building up to a sandcastle. And sometimes having bits of the sandcastle knocked down.
3.) Species that died out, such as Homo neanderthalis (Neaderthal Man) are not counterexamples. In fact, it shows that two different species, with two different natural "sets of equipment", have different ways (and thus chances) of surviving or outlasting eachother. We and Neanderthals DID stem from the same common ancestor. However, whereas Neanderthals had stocky, tough, but not to bright build, we went the lean and brainy root. That was fine for a little while, but soon we outcompeted them, and they died out.
4.) In regards to the comment above that some species were found in the wrong area: The earth moves. Ever see a volcano? An earthquake? Rocks don't always just sit there.
5.) Any educated biologist will not respond by saying "oh, you're right, evolution didn't happen."
Jill: That's not really what Evolution says...
Some (especially miseducated critics) refer to macro and microevolution. There is no such thing. Evolution is evolution. Fruit flys, rats, frogs, etc., have all been observed undergoing character change in laboritories, resulting in the inability to mate with other members of the base species (the control), thus forming a new species. Several examples of so-called macroevolution (the change at a genus level) have been observed by biologists in the rain forest. Furthermore, good fossil evidence shows transition between genera, and even higher taxanomic orders (incorrectly called Kingdom, Phylum, etc. - current work in phylogentic taxonomy does away with Linnean ranks). Representatives of higher order change in the fossil record includes change with fish, fish to amphibians, with amphibians, within reptiles, "reptiles" to dinosaurs, within dinosaurs, dinosaurs to "birds", within "birds", "reptiles" to mammals, within mammals, and other mammals to humans. I am not mentioning invertebrates here, as I do not deal with them in my line of work. See current molecular and physical phylogenetic phylogenies in Nature, Science, Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, etc., all of which are peer reviewed, something most parties who oppose evolution will not do (publish in peer-reviewed journals).
Evolution has nothing to do with The Big Bang - that is astronomy, not biology.
The synthysis and subsequent radiation and adaptation of life is a wonderful and beautiful thing, and far more complex than the, "We don't look like fish, so can't have evolved," argument presented by many whom view evolution/natural selection as the work of the devil.
2. The theory that species give rise to other species. This process of speciation can be accomplished in a number of ways, all of which must result in two (or more) populations becoming genetically isolated. This can be accomplished physically (allopatry and peripatry) or through division of patch types or through behavioral mechanisms (sympatry). This has been observed at low taxonomic levels. For instance, wheat is a modern species resulting from 2 instances of non-disjunction and one hybridization event that all occurred within the last 5000 years. The original plant has been identified from seeds from tombs in Egypt.
The creation of new higher level taxa is often referred to as macroevolution by non-scientists, but this usage is incorrect. The only difference between the origins of higher taxa and species is time. Today's species will eventually give rise to genera as they continue to diverge from their sister-taxa and continue to speciate themselves. All higher taxa were once just a species. Macroevolution properly refers to selection that operates above the species level, such as the selective pressure across the K-T boundary on gastropods which favored genera (but not species) with wide geographic ranges.
I'll note that theory is the most certain science ever is. In this case, it means that over the last century and a half, plus the observations from before the theory's proposal, no evidence has been found that contradicts the theory of evolution. By the same token, gravity is a theory, and thermodynamics is a theory. 'Law' is just scientific shorthand for a theory that no one thinks will ever be disproved, and may soon be applied to evolution.
2. The fossil sequence of horses is an excellent example of evolution
2. In everyday speech: A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.
2. It is interesting to note the evolution in computers over the years.