And it's funny how none out of 26 species of finch ever became a dog, a cat, a monkey (which might or might not know how to type), or a human. The theory of evolution is an extrapolation of empirically witnessed "micro-evolution" (to borrow a term introduced elsewhere in this thread). Nowhere is there evidence of a mutation from one genus to another, much less from one kingdom, phylum, class, order, or family to another.
Don't cite spurious "evidence" of micro-evolution to support macro-evolutionary theory. (And, yes, there is a difference between the two. Macro evolution requires that an organism transforms from one species into an unrelated species - not that a finch may develop specialized characteristics and therefore be recognized as a "new" species.)
its not necessary for one to become another, they could both be traced back to the same thing.
Wrong! Macroevolution requires that at some point, descendents of one population of the species evolved enough times that they "look a lot different" than the descendents of the other population.
French & Portuguese both "evolved" from Latin, but I doubt a native French speaker could understand someone speaking in Portuguese, or vice versa, & neither of them would understand a Latin speaker. Micro or macro difference there?