[MacDorcha]

OK, it's about to be explained.

"Micro" means it's the same species, but has adaptations.

"Macro" would be observing a rat change to a cat. (ie, change from a species to another)

[Modernman]

"Macro" would be observing a rat change to a cat. (ie, change from a species to another)

If a rat species evolved into a cat species in one step, that would disprove the TOE.

[Junior]

"Macro" would be observing a rat change to a cat. (ie, change from a species to another)

Well, if a rat changed to a cat, the entire ToE would tossed out the window. This of course, is the typical ignorant creationist strawman. Now, as for one species changing to another, explain donkeys and horses. Both are separate species, but can still interbreed to a limited extent. The same for lions and tigers. Indeed, I've found that most creationists actually move the goalposts of "macro" evolution to the genus level because of these examples.

Now, let's take a look at these macro changes. Can you tell me the radical differences between cats, dogs, bears and weasles? They strongly resemble one-another but would be considered separate "kinds" by most creationists. However, looking at the fossil record for all these kinds you find they gradually begin to converge in looks. You'll eventually find the last common ancestor of these critters resembles all its descendents:

So, is the miacid a weasel, cat, dog or bear?

[RadioAstronomer]

"Macro" would be observing a rat change to a cat.

Good grief. How many times do we have to tell you “rats to cats” (or some other such silliness) is not what evolution postulates. If we were to see that, it would actually fly in the face of the theory of evolution.