[Carling]

That is a sophist's take on evolution. I tend to agree with the author on many points, but that doesn't make them scientific proofs. "Evidences"?

Plus, his evidences were microevolution, not macroevolution, so I'm not even sure why his article is titled as such.

In short, a lot of words, but not enough to convince me of a scientific FACT, and if convinces you, I suggest you do some more research on what scientific fact consists of.

[JeffAtlanta]

Plus, his evidences were microevolution, not macroevolution, so I'm not even sure why his article is titled as such.

Here we go again. There is no such thing as micro or macro evolution. All evolution is gradual. What you refer to as "macro-evolution" is just the accumulation of "micro-evolution".

If you're waiting for a fruit fly to give birth to a monkey then its not going to happen. In fact, if it did it would actually invalidate evolution.

[Ichneumon]

I tend to agree with the author on many points, but that doesn't make them scientific proofs. "Evidences"?

Yes, "evidences". Multiple lines of evidence. And again, there is no such thing as "scientific proof". There is only evidence which substantiates the theory, or disconfirms the theory.

Plus, his evidences were microevolution, not macroevolution, so I'm not even sure why his article is titled as such.

You didn't actually read the introductory page, did you? It would clarify your confusion if you had.

Short form: The evidences are in support of *common descent*. Common descent indicates macroevolution. Therefore evidence of common descent is evidence of macroevolution. QED.