A pretty interesting article:
http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comm ... evolution/
It is also good because it's one of those very simple and very effective refutations of creationism that you can use on the terminally simple (all the strong evidences for evolution that I usually come across in my course are genetic and quite mathematical). Here's how it works:
You say "Why on earth would God make a mangled, non-functioning gene for tasting sweet things in a cat, a gene that looks just like a normal one that has undergone a small deletion mutation?". They will then say (if they know typical creationist apologetics) something like "Well, information can be lost by mutation, it's just you can't gain complexity". At which point, you can point out that identical mangled genes are present in all other great cat species (tigers and cheetahs and the like) that have been sequenced, and that if the mangling had happened by mutation, it must mean that all these species had a common ancestor. Thus, large scale macro-evolution occured. QED
Nice and simple