1. Just like Charles Darwin, the modern-day evolution scientific community asserts that every single animal that has ever existed came from one common ancestor aka came from a single organism (macroevolution).
Second: the Bible differentiates between "kinds," not species. Species is a concept unknown to the Bible's authors.
One does not have to evolve a new species to have a new "kind." The English sparrow was imported to North America several times during the 1850s. Since then, the American birds have evolved a whole new sub-species. Thus, we have a new "kind" of English sparrow.
There are also complete fossil collections for several genera. The wooly mammoth became the imperial mammoth became the Columbian mammoth. We have the complete fossil record. Same for horses. We also have fairly complete records for bears, deer, wolves and cats. The argument that we don't have a fossil record of one species becoming another one is bogus.
Also, your question misunderstands the entire concept. Species do not evolve from "completely different" species. They evolve from ancestral species which are very much like them. As different branches of the family tree produce new offspring, each generation differs slightly from the last. As evolution proceeds, the populations diverge until they can no longer interbreed. The ability to interbreed is the definition of a species (Sort of; there are a lot of exceptions.).
Do you know what a virus is? Is it alive? You can dry it out, boil it and do any number of other nasty things to it without hurting it. When conditions are favorable it starts making more viruses. A virus is neither living nor dead. The concept doesn't even apply to it. It is what it is.
By the same token, there are molecules which we assume to be non-living that can replicate themselves. Put some of these inside a soap bubble and you have a cell. One by one, you add the traits of living organisms until you have something that's alive. But in retrospect, you're not sure where you crossed the line between the living and the dead. Non-living molecules also evolve. Each minor change you might call "microevolution." Put enough of these together and you have "macroevolution." It's your own concept. All you have to do is apply it.
Is a computer alive? Problems that haven't been solved in computing acquire the label "artificial intelligence." As soon as they're solved, they become "computer applications." But as more and more of these problems get solved, one day we will build a machine that is aware of itself. Will it be alive? Will it have a soul? If it does, will it die and go to Heaven? What happens if it doesn't accept Jesus? Does that mean our computer will go to Hell? Where's the line? And we'll do all that without ever explaining how the machine became aware of itself. Indeed, we're not entirely sure that we haven't crossed this line already.
I assume you are a Young Earth Creationist. How old do YECs think the earth is? I've heard some say 6000 years. The Jewish calendar puts us in the 5773rd year of the world. The Irish calendar makes it the 7213th Year of the World.
The oldest known single-stemmed tree is 9550 years old. It's a recently-discovered Norway spruce in northern Sweden. There's a huon pine (multi-stemmed) in Indonesia that's over 10,000 years old. A creosote bush in the Mojave Desert is estimated at 15,000 years old - older than the Mojave, itself. And Clone Pando, the world's oldest and largest living thing, an aspen clone in Utah covering 106 acres is somewhere between 100,000 and one million years old. And we have tree-ring calendars going back 8400 years (The White Mountain 2 Chronology; I have a copy on my desk.). There's a European oak chronology going back 17,000 years and we may eventually be able to get back 60,000 years, maybe farther. How do these extremely old living things figure into your concepts of evolution?
I read weather from tree rings. If you will tell me what year the earth was created, I will tell you what the weather was that year. And the year after. And the year before.
I do wish you fundies would learn something about evolution before you decide it isn't valid. You're pretty good at knocking down you own strawmen. But these religious strawmen don't reflect the reality of the theory. So you disprove a theory that nobody believes in, anyway. And you think you accomplish something by doing that?
Edited by Doug1o29, 03 May 2013 - 06:17 PM.