Microevolution, yes. There is ample evidence of it and we can actually see it at work today. Macroevolution, however, not a chance. In a hundred and fifty years of fossil collection and analysis, we haven't seen a single fossil that evidences one species evolving into another.
I knew you wouldn't be able to accept you evolved from a monkey.
Show me some evidence. There have been no transitional fossils found of the ancient hominids that suggest that we came from them. They are distinct species. There are not even any transitional fossils to suggest that they came from each other. Each appears to be distinct. A creature that was there, lived for a while and died out.
That is incorrect.
First off - homosapiens did not evolve from "monkeys' - we, and they evolved from a common apelike ancester. There are many transitional fossils - each a seperate species - that shows the development from these ancestral forms to modern homosapiens. You can clearly see gradations of change from one to the other.
The other method of measuring relatedness to species is through DNA research and mapping. I'm afraid the records are pretty clear there.
As I mentioned earlier, the transitional fossils are there for some evolutionary moves, but abscent from others. A lot of species on the earth today have some sort of missing link where there was a huge unexplained jump in the evolutionary process.
No, it is still a theory. A widely-accepted and highly probable theory, but a theory, because it is not fully provable as "fact."
How can you accept microevolution but not macroevolution? If a species develops and develops, soon it will bear no resemblance to what it was originally.