Here is my simple, easy to understand, argument against macro-evolution. For macro-evolution to be true, you must accept that:
1. There was such a drastic mutation of one living animal that had genetic and chromosome changes that became a new species.
2. That there was another exact same change in an opposite sex animal in the same relative location and time.
3. That somehow these two mutated animals survived to adulthood. Extremely unlikely.
4. That the male and female somehow managed to find each other.
5. That they were able to mate and have offspring that survived.
The odds of all this happening are impossibly high. I would say it is 1/∞.
Evolution doesn’t say the change happens in a single mutation so number 1 isn’t correct. Evolution says something that, on the surface sounds plausible, i.e. that a long series of small changes accumulate over time, until there’s something that’s not even recognizable as what it started out as. The scenario is totally implausible.
The tiny little changes don’t benefit the species in any way until way down the road, when it has fully developed some new ability it previously lacked, such as birds evolving from dinosaurs. So why would these useless changes take over an entire breeding population, until hundreds of thousands of years later when the species can finally do something new? And it’s not just one change, it’s a bunch of changes that all need to be in place for a large transition. It’s preposterous.
Numbers 2-4 are not necessary. A gene can be passed on to offspring if it’s not in both parents. If a blond and a brunette have a child, it will be one or the other.