Evolution is a coherent theory with significant amounts of data to establish its veracity.

I must clear up some obvious misconceptions you have about evolution. I shall show these and go into depth shortly. * There is no distinction between micro evolution and macro evolution. Pretending there is a distinction is an attempt to make it seem like a different mechanism is used. This is similar to suggesting you can walk ten feet with legs but cannot walk ten miles. * The taxonomy of animals into groupings of cats, dogs, mammals, tetrapods etc. Only make sense within evolutionary theory and have no natural lines of demarcation outside of implications of the theory. * Evolution does not care. It does not want. It does not choose. It does not "come up with" anything. Much of the power of evolution comes specifically from the fact that it works without knowing anything. * Evolution does not travel in one direction. There is no top. * Rabbits and mice are both glires. They share a common ancestor about 82 million years ago. Humans share a common ancestor with the glires about 86 million years ago. Species do not evolve from their cousins, they evolve from their ancestors. * Elephants and snakes are both amniotes. They share a common ancestor about 340 million years ago. The group of amniotes includes all mammals including humans. * You do not see any missing links because you are not looking at the research. . http://en.wikipedia.org... * Evolution evolves forms well adapted at climbing trees, climbing, swimming and hunting. This is why you see well adapted creatures doing these things. You're not going to have any half-monkey/ half-dog climbing a tree repeatedly. The fact that you even suppose this a prediction of evolution is a problem with your understanding rather than the theory itself. * Monkeys and dogs are both Boreoeutheria. They share a common ancestor about 93 million years ago. The Boreoeutheria includes humans. If there were a selective advantage for dogs to climb trees they certainly could do it. * Horses and zebras share a common ancestor about 2 million years ago. * Evolution allows species to best occupy their niche, not create super-monkeys. * There are many different niches to occupy in a single tree. No single species occupies all the niches. However, in general of two species do actually occupy the same niche one species will drive the other species out. ----------------- . http://www.youtube.com... . http://www.youtube.com... I'll attempt to explain your objections as well as provide evidence for the principle issue of the debate. The easiest way to show that evolution is a coherent theory with a significant amount of data to establish its veracity is to present the theory, show the data and show how the data explains is explained by the theory. Given any species grasshoppers for example if they were allowed to breed indiscriminately, they would within a several generations cover the entire planet several feet deep with grasshoppers. So there must be at some level forces within nature which limit the expanse of the grasshopper as well as the expanse of ants, mice, dogs, cockroaches and the millions of other species around. Now, these forces such as breeding opportunity, starvation, disease, feeding ability, predation, habitat availability must be present for all species which exist on the planet. Now, within any species there exists a slight amount of variation within that species. Some dogs have longer ears, some rabbits larger eyes, some humans are taller, and under varying conditions those traits may allow for that individual to have more offspring than other individuals within that species. In colder climates, those individuals with longer hair or thicker coats might be slightly more able to have more offspring with longer hair or thicker coats. Through this process given a colder climate you would necessarily end up with a population of those individuals best adapted to that climate. Darwin's great insight was to looks at the selective breeding of those domesticated varieties of plants and animals. The Mexican hairless is a dog as is the great Dane, mastiff, bull dog, and German Shepard. These breeds of dogs were produced by selective breeding over only about 10,000 years. He suggested that this same process which was widely known and used by every breeder, fancier, and farmer in England for hundreds of years could also be used by the mindless whims of nature. Naturally Selecting those animals which could best compete in the struggle for survival. So if species were produced by nature selecting those variations within a species and those individuals with that variation to survive, then what we see today throughout the world are the merely the leaves of a massive tree of life. The adaptations which arise in one population do not rise in another and the furthering adaptation by the selection of variations within a species will cause it to diverge from the closely related but disconnected species. So the further back the common ancestor between the species greater the difference between the two species. So the slight differences between horses and zebras happened in a mere 2 million years, whereas the greater differences between mice and rabbits happened in a far greater 86 million years. Whereas the vast differences between the snake and elephant took 340 million years. This is also why traits shared between closely related species but non-existent in more distantly related species are never found in more distant species. All mammals for example have hair and also express milk. You will never find a reptile or non-mammal expressing milk even though it's an entirely effective way of giving nutrients to offspring. Also, all tetrapods have four primary limbs and a tail. So we see lizards with this general arrangement and cows even though their last shared ancestor was 340 million years ago. However, some species which evolved into niches which such traits were no longer needed. For example, whales are mammals and have hair and express milk for their young. However whales don't have hind limbs because they are ocean dwelling. However, if we look at the embryo development of whales we see they follow the typical mammal pattern and looking at the skeleton we find that they still have a pelvis. Moreover they have bones for hind limbs which are purely disconnected from the rest of the skeleton. Even stranger is that once in a while we will find a while with little hind limbs that don't work: vestigial legs. Just as sometimes humans are born with small tails. Without understanding the origins and ancestry of these forms these happenings would make little to no logical sense. But, we understand that whales are mammals and had land dwelling ancestors with legs. In fact, we've discovered over the last couple decades a large series of these ancestors from the land dwelling to the partially aquatic to the fully aquatic in Pakistan (where they evolved). We see that the species alive today are the result of long lines of varying ancestors. We shouldn't see a monkey evolving from a dog because those are both end points in the tree. However, we could see the ancestor of all of the mammals evolving into both of those species by adapting to different niches for survival. And understand that there isn't a topmost place for a species or some magical goal for evolution, but rather a series of species well adapted towards their particular way of life. An all around species might be great, but it also might be out competed in every area by species which are masters of that area. Which ever variations of a species produce the greatest amount of offspring are those variations which will occur at a greater frequency in the next generation. For more and greater bits of evidence I recommend: . http://toarchive.org... 29+ evidences for macroevolution.