Here is a video that does a decent job of explaining what evolution is and what it isn't.
"While details of macroevolution are continuously studied by the scientific community, the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.E. Common descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data. Predictions of empirical data from the theory of common descent have been so consistent that biologists often refer to it as the "fact of evolution"
Every living organism bears the mark of common descent, and not just the fact of evolution, but its specific path can be seen in the DNA of every living organism. Read about the evolution of hemoglobin as read from living organisms. The evidence from that area of research alone has more evidence than most creationists would ever imagine exists in all of science. Add to this the evolution observed in the lab with Lenski's experiment and evolution observed in nature over decades or by observing ring species, and the living evidence alone presents an incontrovertible case.
Evolution is a fact, it has been demonstrated to be true in spite of all the backlash from the creationists. Species do indeed change over time, there is no dispute about this fact among real scientists. It has been observed both in the laboratory and in nature. Anyone who believes that evolution is a myth is deluded to the point of perversity.
This is hardly the case of evolution though. You can observe the process of evolution at a cellular level. It is only called "micro evolution", not because it is entirely different from "macro evolution" but because one occurs on a microscopic scale. But all evolution does anyway. Claiming there is no "macro-evolution" but "micro-evolution is just a way for some creationist to special plead. But what makes specification at a microscopic scale different than at the macroscopic scale? Every organism is made up of cells, if we observe cells, micro-organisms, and virus evolve why is this evolution excluded to a larger organisms? It is special pleading to accept microbes can variate to new organism but nothing else. The microscopic world is truly phenomenal and amazing, the diversity easily beats that of the macroscopic world. Just as there are fossils of microbial evolution there are living examples. (brad pointed out the long-term E.coli study)
Antibiotics, vaccinations, and our immune system have to deal with the changes in viruses and bacteria that occur over time. If you want living proof all you need to do is question why new strains of disease appear.
If more convincing is needed, I recommend looking at Richard E. Lenski and MSU's study on the evolution of E.coli. They went through 567,294 generations of E.coli so far and have claimed to have witnessed the evolutionary process happening.
The very reason we are alive today is solid proof of evolution. We are all parts of history that have congregated into one generation. Even the fossils around us show how creatures around us have evolved throughout the time that the Earth has harbored life. To say that there is no living proof of evolution would mean that we would still be simple one celled organisms. The process of evolution however takes very long, and cannot be seen in such small increments that the human brain is used to, and instead should be seen as a process spanning over millions of years.
The theory of evolution is a "thought, assumption and most importantly, a guess". There are no known facts that can prove evolution. However, the statements and facts stated in the Bible are reality. It's a fact that people and animals are still being produced just like the Bible outlines: male and female bearing offspring. If evolution was true, then there would be an awful lot of "big bangs" going on these days because new people and animals are being born by the day.
Evolutionists have their theory about this but Creationists also have a supporting argument. How do bacteria become stronger than our medicine? Evolutionists insist that it is living proof of evolution but when in fact it actually has to do with genetics. There have been found a type of bacteria that had never been in contact with antibiotics but still was resistant. Evolutionists argue that it evolved over millions of year unlike the ones in the lab. Creationists will point out that the genes for surviving our medicine have always been there in some of them but not all of them. If a group of bacteria is killed, all the ones that weren't that resistant, die. The ones still living it might seem has gained resistance. How do Evolutionists explain the gaining of resistance if they weren't resistant to our medicine in the first place, wouldn't they have died before evolving?
Creation implies a creator. Calling things living proof of Evolution implies that evolution is true. The problem is, to call something living proof of Evolution, evolution has to be true in the first place, but evolution is not yet proven. This is called circular reasoning. Although I am an evolutionist and evolution has lot's of fossil evidence, I feel that nothing can be called living proof of evolution.
There are bones of Neanderthals and Cro-Magnom beings, yet there is no evidence that they are related to each other. Scientist can not speak to artifacts so they must come up with theories in order to try and explain what they have found. Bone artifacts are just bones, they can not prove that evolution exist.
The theory of evolution is exactly that, a theory. If there were proof that it was accurate, it would be known as the fact of evolution. Science has come a long ways in the last few hundred years, but I believe we are light-years away from proving the theory of evolution, or the existence of God. In the meanwhile, we’ll have to settle on our faith.