Again, feel free to peruse the above posts for examples, but I'm certainly willing to cite some more, as you specifically asked for examples of evidence of common descent, and of natural selection, and genetic/biochemical evidence.
Evidence of common descent is any evidence that shows different species of organisms share a common ancestor.(chimps and humans-we have similar body shape, number of hair follicles, etc. we share a nearly identical(96%) DNA sequence.
Evidence of natural selection: The textbook example of the Peppered Moths is a widely-used example of natural selection; that an organisms environment will "select" for or against a particular trait. Natural selection is one of the mechanisms by which evolution works.
Natural selection would dictate that any animal not suited to it's environment would be "weeded out" by nature itself.
Genetic/Biochemical evidence: As I've previously stated, the best new evidence for ToE comes from these fields. They also provide evidence of common descent from the study of gene sequences. Comparative sequence analysis examines the relationship between the DNA sequences of different species, producing several lines of evidence that confirm Darwin's original hypothesis of common descent. If the hypothesis of common descent is true, then species that share a common ancestor will have inherited that ancestor's DNA sequence. They will have also inherited mutations unique to that ancestor. More closely-related species will have a greater fraction of identical sequence and will have shared substitutions when compared to more distantly-related species (Like chimps and humans, compared with chimps and mice). Feel free to do a google search to look at the DNA sequence of closely/distantly related species for more evidence.
First of all, you seem to be promoting flat-out biblical creationism, not id, which theoretically postulates an unnamed, intelligent designer. Secondly, scriptural authority cannot logically be considered evidence/proof of ID. What I meant by my original question, is what natural phenomena or processes (not scriptural authority) do you see in the world that would support the alleged claim that naturalistic processes are inadequate explanations of those phenomena/processes? Moreover, how does ID debunk our existing natural explanations?
Who knows? why does it matter? How many raindrops fall during a thunderstorm? If a mutation gives that organism a survival advantage, then we consider it beneficial.
Ahh, I apologize, I misunderstood. You were using the terms "higher/lower" as "more complex/less complex". Of course, humans are more complex than single-celled organisms.
Then aren't you already aware of the evidence? If it's that you are aware of the evidence, but just don't buy it, Well, I can grudgingly accept that, I mean, I guess I'd have to. Some evolutionary biologist out there could cite examples that would blow mine out of the water, probably more eloquently, too. What is your degree in?
even better, here's a blurb from the journal Scientific American that tells of the discovery of the animal that may be the ancestor of all placental mammals.
June 21, 2007 Ancient Ancestor Of Humans, Dogs, Cats, Llamas, Sloths, Marmots...
The little guy lived more than 70 million years ago in what’s now the Gobi desert. In 1997, his remains were discovered by fossil hunters. And in a paper published in the new issue of the journal Nature, researchers announced that they think he’s a member of the kind of mammal that is the ancestor of us all. And I do mean all, all placental mammals, you, me, Fido, Felix, manatees, elephants, every placental mammal now living on earth.
The tiny ancient shrew-like mammal is called Maelestes gobiensis. Researchers analyzed over 400 anatomical features of 69 species of living and other fossil mammals, along with the recent discovery. The genealogical tree they drew puts our common ancestor right about the same time that the dinosaurs began to dwindle, due to a giant impact event some 65 million years ago.
So the little shrew offers confirming evidence that the disappearance of the dinosaur lines that didn’t go on to become birds was what allowed mammals to evolve into the multiple forms we see today. And to take advantage of all the opportunities the dinosaurs left behind.-SA 2007
The most famous are flora/fauna of the Galapagos Islands. The islands are young (some ~ 1 million years), have a volcanic origin providing an opportunity for new arrivals to "radiate" into open niches and the islands are quite distant from the mainland. This isolation will allow for a random element in community composition. Irrespective of genetic consequences of the founding event, subsequent evolution of species quite likely will be under dramatically different selective regime than those in the source population, like Darwin's finches. Morphological and genetic studies indicate that they are derived from single ancestral finch, i.e., are monophyletic. There has been dramatic specialization in ecological roles, each species having distinct morphologies and associated food items (beak size and shape associated with seed size, grub feeding, tool use, etc.). Classic examples of different distributions of beak depths: difference between means is greater between species when they occur on the same island than when they occur alone on different islands.
Hawaiian Drosophila show remarkable patterns of speciation. At least 700 species of Drosophilids live on the Hawaiian islands. Not just typical little fruit flies either: large body size, dramatic "picture wing" species, some with "hammer-head" shaped heads. Banding patterns of polytene chromosomes allows phylogeny reconstruction: these and other data show that patterns of colonization are from older to younger islands (flies on Hawaii are derived from ancestors on Maui). Most species are found only on one island (high levels of endemism). This implies that most new colonization events have lead to speciation events.
Climatic changes associated with the glacial advances and retreats altered habitats in the tropics resulting in "islands" of habitat that fluctuated in size and geographic location, leading to fragmentation of distributions and contribution to speciation. Believed to be one explanation for patterns of speciation in the Amazon. Also, the genus Larus (seagulls) fragmented in Siberia during the Pleistocene. Diverged populations of Larus argentatus (herring gull) colonized eastern Siberia, across the Bering straits, across North America, Iceland and back to Northern Europe becoming increasingly diverged at each step. Hybrid zones exist between successive populations but the ends of the ring are reproductively isolated showing that speciation has gone to completion
Seriously, there are lots of examples. anyone interested should just google "Examples of speciation". You are free to provide evidence that any of these and others do not actually show speciation.
What is the evidence that shows the earth is that young?
What is the evidence that all of the current dating methods we use are inaccurate?
You don't find it the least bit compelling that several different dating methods, all operating on different principles, all show the earth to be much older?
What is it about radio-metric dating, for example, that you find faulty?
The term "Transitional form" just means that. An intermediate form between what came before and what will come after. If an organism produces offspring, then that organism is a "transitional form" between it's parents and it's offspring. There is nothing to "prove".
We do, but the fossil record is incomplete, due to the very specific conditions required for fossilization to occur. These days, genetics and biochemistry help bridge the gap through gene sequencing and comparative DNA analysis.
Why? because every living thing that ever existed wasn't perfectly fossilized? The fossils that exist provide lots of evidence. It's just that these days, evidence for evolution can be almost solely supported by genetics and DNA sequencing.
What does that even mean?
Are you suggesting that a snowflake contains "information" in it's complex, 6-sided shape? That it cannot occur naturally? would you say that the structure of a water molecule contains "information" about the structure of a snowflake? We know that in living organisms, information is passed from parent to offspring at the genetic level. If changes in that info due to random mutation help that organism to survive, then they will get passed on to the next generation.
Please explain how this could be considered "evidence". Because it says so? It's not independently verifiable by anyone. Your belief in it is a matter of faith, not evidence.
There are other religious texts that claim things happened differently. why don't you consider them true?
.
It's evidence that living things change, which is all evolution is. Look at the different kinds of domesticated cat/dog we have, Certain traits were selected as desirable by humans, and they were selectively bred, resulting in the differentiation we see today. This is change. This is evolution. The same thing happens in nature, but it's caused by natural (as opposed to human) selection.
Why don't you cite evidence that it is incorrect rather than just declaring something "non-evidence"? The process of evolution occurs at the DNA/gene level, changes at this level are responsible for the phenotypic variation we see around us.
Seriously, this IS evolution, and we can see the genetic mutation that causes this trait. Again, for the umpteenth time, lots of micro-evolution (or adaptation, whatever you want to call it, it's change) will, over time, eventually result in macro-evolution.
What this means, is that the discovery of DNA allowed us to do gene sequencing and DNA analysis, which gives us evidence of common descent at the genetic level, etc. that previously we could not do with only fossils at our disposal.
Um, What?
Nobody is trying to trick you by stating that observing something is a perfectly legitimate way to learn about it. in fact, the more closely you observe something, the more accurate your conclusions tend to be.
Also, let me add that Wiki is one of the LEAST recognised sources of solid information within scientific OR academic circles... :yes 
bonnie