To follow Sugarfoot Jack:
"But they're still bears, right? They're not turning into seals, or puffins, or lemmings (or cats)."

To even USE that as a dis-proof of evolution is to misunderstand the very concept. Of course bears don't "turn into" totally different species. Bears came from a 'line' of creatures which have followed a totally different evolutionary path for multi-millions of years. Now, IF you go back several HUNDRED million years to single celled entities, then it is true that there are common ancestors.....but the splits occurred so long ago that we can't directly trace them. Whatever bears are, they have such distinctive DNA that they will always just be 'slightly different' bears!

Most religious concerns revolve around NOT wanting to accept that we evolved from or are related to, apes, monkeys...etc. Well... we are NOT evolved from apes....however...
We humans and some other primates, like chimps, had a **common ancestor** somewhere between 4-10 million years ago, depending on how we trace the details. Even today, we have more than 95% the same DNA as chimps...but that 3-5% is enough to make us VERY different, even as we see the obvious similarities.

Iona... I could write 20 paragraphs describing the fallacious reasoning you are using to defend your religious stand. (though the funny thing about humans is that they can just stamp their feet and declare "I don't accept your definition of 'reasoning'"...which is almost like 'deciding' that pi=3, instead of 3.14159...)

but the point is, it (your religious stand) does not NEED to be 'defended'. You can believe in the Bible and no one can 'prove' that it is not "the word of God"...but we **CAN** prove certain things about ourselves and our history that the Bible simply does not and can not deal with! We are what we are...and we evolved how we evolved, and IF you don't see all that described in the Bible, is is because those humans who wrote, translated, edited and **interpreted** the Bible had no access to the data that we have today.

When you...or anyone else... demands that evolution would require "bears turning into...etc." before our eyes, that is simply, as someone mentioned before, a "straw man"... which means an obviously incorrect premise which was not claimed. Knocking down something that your opponents didn't assert is not good argument.

Inventing terms like micro-evolution ...just to have a word that 'sounds' like a distinction does not change anything.

Now... if you care to see & explore some amazing data and genuine, real, touchable evidence of evolutionary paths that didn't survive....Google "Burgess shale". and...ummm...be VERY glad we are not related to the organisms in THAT sample of this Earths history