Strongest or most compelling evidence of Macroevolution?

New guy here
I just wanted to ask. What do you think is the most compelling evidence in favor of Macroevolution? Say you had a class of new students who have never heard of it and you're given just one day to show them clearly the fact that evolution, particularly Macroevolution, has occurred and does indeed still occur today. Is there some particular evidence of Macroevolution that just simply blows you away and makes it so obviously true?I'm just curious and must apologize ahead of time if I don't debate the issue. I'm more interested in what you guys think.Thanks

I'd stack up the fossil record, step back a bit and look at it.Once this or that wasn't there, now it is! How hard is that?

Well I'd go to talkorigins.org and print up a bunch of copies of this article. 29+ Evidences for Macrovevolution

Milagros,I'd point out that cladistics produces similar results regardless of data set, & that it matches stratigraphy.Mark

I'd step back and define and discuss the term "macroevolution". Many creationists define it as "evolution which has not been observed" and therfore can say that anyting you can demonstrate is not macroevolution.

I think that the whole "macro" vs "micro" classification is meaninless, anyway. That's like defining walking to the store as "microwalking", and walking across the continent as "macrowalking". Is there a difference? Of quantity, sure. But no matter how far you walk, it's the same process.Macroevolution and microevolution are both evolution. They're both driven by natural selection + random mutation. When reproductive isolation comes into play you get new species. Don't buy into what's essentially a creationist classification.

I don't think you could stack up the whole fossil record - there's just too much of it! Instead I would go through the most significant changes using fossil examples - i.e. starting with the first primitive cells (acritarch fossils), then the first multicellular life (the Ediacara fauna), the first shelly invertebrates, etc. etc. Using stratigraphy, it's easy to show the order in which they occurred, and then you have a clear graduation developing from simple to more complex life, and increasing forms of life.The most compelling evidence for evolution will always be in the Earth itself, in my opinion. The distinction between macro and micro-evolution is a myth, and I say we disregard it.The Rock Hound

I would have to agree with observations made in the fossil record. It was the first piece of evidence that really supported evolution. If I were talking to a room of creationists, I would ask them what they thought the fossil record would look like if all they had to go on was the Torah. Then I would ask them to try and apply that view to the actual fossil record. I believe, personally, that their preconcieved ideas from the Torah and actual observations would not line up.Second, I would then show genetic evidence. This is important because at the time phylogenies were first constructed along morphological lines DNA had not even been discovered yet. The huge amounts of genetic similarities that follow common ancestory when compared to stratigraphy and morphological phylogenies is very impressive.

If you're looking to show how dramatically genes are capable of changing when under strong selective pressure for just a few hundred years, show them pigeons.Then ask them to think of how dramatically things would change in *billions* of years. Remind them that each new niche that a species expands to puts it under brand new, strong selective pressures... etc.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Thank you all for your response. But I must apologize, I didn't realize that what I said may be misleading. I am not a teacher. I was just using this scenario as an example of, if placed in a situation of being a teacher for a day infront of students who have never heard of evolution, what you think would be the strongest or most compelling evidence of Macroevolution that you would share with them. I am sorry for the mix up.

In that case there are some things I might want to talk about before.There isn't much good putting hard evidence in front of someone who doesn't think it matters. Some idea of how to approach a problem might be discussed first. Perhaps with something really simple.A discussion of what is good and bad "evidence" might help too.A little game of proposing "theories" and testing them might be a lead in.Then get to *NOT* the ToE but try to hold off offering any explanation at first. Just present as much of the main areas of evidence first.In fact it is wrong, IMNSHO, to start with the "best" evidence. There is no "best" there is a large amount (HUGE) of interconnected pieces of evidence. It is the range of the evidence and it's interconnectedness that is the "real" evidence rather than any specific piece of it.Paint a picture of what is known as fact, why it is known and only then start to construct possible theories to explain it.

I don't know enough history. Can anyone help?It occured to me in thinking about the above that the problem isn't to explain ('prove') so called macro evolution. The problem is micro evolution.I think that a century or two ago it was clear that large scale changes had taken place. Initially some put forward the idea of a series of special creations one after the other.Darwin recognized that there was another way that of small (micro) changes added up instead of large changes. Seeing those is, perhaps, harder than seeing the macro changs which have obviously happened. At least at the time it was.This is backwards to the usual view and just a thought which crossed my mind. Does anyone else have a thought on this?

That's pretty much right. It was clear that the Earth was much older than had been thought and that it had been inhabited by very different life in the distant past.Multiple creations were one attempt to find a solution. Verious evolutionary schemes were another. Darwin's achievement was to link natural selection to evolution as a concept and to muster the evidence to support his view.

Interestingly enough, it was not geologists who did most of the initial work on the geological column, but railroad engineers. Railroad workers had to blast or dig through large amounts of rock to get a smooth grade for the tracks, just as in modern day with railroad and highway construction. In a small given region of land, each layer of strata has roughly the same mechanical properties - how hard it is, how hard it is to blast or dig away, etc. The people who designed and built railways developed extensive listings of what fossils were commonly found in what layers, to help in determing how to get through the rock in those locations. Each type of fossil was only found in particular layers, consistantly, and so they provided nice indicators of how to dig in a particular region through a particular strata.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Now that is interesting. Thank you.