I'm going to try to clear up a big source of confusion in this forum. The fact of MICROevolution, and how it relates to MACROevolution. (Or doesn't) Microevolution is the
small, obvious changes that are easy to see. For example, the many species of dogs.
Many of these changes are organisms adapting to their enviroment. Macroevolution
is the change from a fish to a dog. (That is an example, I'm not sure if you think a fish changed into a dog) Macroevolution is a BIG change over long periods of time (millions of years) and microevolution does not take too long (although I think it happens much faster than you do). Correct me if I have misunderstood any of this.

Now here is where I disagree. You say microevolution leads to macroevolution. You say small changes in an organism will eventually make it a different organism. I say that no matter how much microevolution happens, it will always be the same organism. There may be many different kinds of dogs, but no matter how much they adapt,
over any period of time, they will always be dogs.
Macroevolution has never been observed. There is not a single fossil which supports macroevolution.
(If you think there are some, please give me evidence) Microevolution is a fact consistant with creation. Macroevolution is not a fact, and is not consistant with creation.

I hope this clears some confusion up. If you disagree, or think you have evidence of MACROevolution, please respond. KC2GWX 73's

• It does not matter how it happened - yanniru - May 16, 2002 - 13:43 UTC