[Antonello]

Don't be absurd. The difference between the two is obvious. Micro-evolution (or adaptation) are changes within species. Macro-evolution is change that results in one species begetting another, more complex species. The former is an accepted scientific principle. It meets all the standards of the scientific method. The latter does not. It is completely unproven. It cannot be observed or reproduced. It also is not predictive in nature. Macro-evolution, which is at the heart of evolutionary thinking, is a total violation of the scientific method.

If evolutionary scientists see no difference between the two, you have pointed out why a) creation scientists are more rigorous in their thinking and b) why evolutionary scientists don't realize that the "theory" they are championing is total crap.

I am guessing you really meant to set the arbitrary bar a bit higher than that, as the evolution of new species has been observed. Of course, things like that pesky Archeopteryx that they keep discovering more fossils of have to be an annoyance to the idea that there is no evidence of higher transitions, but I'm confident in your ability to ignore trivial stuff like that.

Oh, but could you please explain why whales and boas have vestigial hips and legs, if they are not remnants of what you would call 'macro' evolution?

[bobhoskins]

Oh, but could you please explain why whales and boas have vestigial hips and legs, if they are not remnants of what you would call 'macro' evolution?

If they didn't have hips, their pants would fall down, as everyone knows whales and boas don't wear belts!

[MineralMan]

"Oh, but could you please explain why whales and boas have vestigial hips and legs, if they are not remnants of what you would call 'macro' evolution?"

I know! I know! God was distracted by a cell phone call when he designed those two. I mean...you can't expect him to pay 100% attention all the time.