[shubi]

"There is no evidence for macroevolution"

I don't think you understand what the definition of macroevolution is. Many have been deceived by the charlatans at ICR or AIG.

Here is the conclusion of an article on the subject:

There is no difference between micro- and macroevolution except that genes between species usually diverge, while genes within species usually combine. The same processes that cause within-species evolution are responsible for above-species evolution, except that the processes that cause speciation include things that cannot happen to lesser groups, such as the evolution of different sexual apparatus (because, by definition, once organisms cannot interbreed, they are different species).

The idea that the origin of higher taxa, such as genera (canines versus felines, for example), requires something special is based on the misunderstanding of the way in which new phyla (lineages) arise. The two species that are the origin of canines and felines probably differed very little from their common ancestral species and each other. But once they were reproductively isolated from each other, they evolved more and more differences that they shared but the other lineages didn't. This is true of all lineages back to the first eukaryotic (nuclear) cell. Even the changes in the Cambrian explosion are of this kind, although some (eg, Gould 1989) think that the genomes (gene structures) of these early animals were not as tightly regulated as modern animals, and therefore had more freedom to change.

Here is a link to the article:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

Here is another article on 29 evidences for macroevolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

[microgood]

I don't think you understand what the definition of macroevolution is. Many have been deceived by the charlatans at ICR or AIG.

I have been all over talkorigins.org. It treats evolution as a religion. The section on transitional species convinced me even more that there is no macroevolution and I have read all 29 of the supposed evidences of macroevolution.

But for me macroevolution goes all the way back. If it cannot show how we got from a single cell to a human being, I will not believe it can go from an ape or as of this week a platypus to a human.

To go from a single cell to a creature with arms and legs and a brain and even over 100 trillion years by random mutation is simply not believable. And of course many evolutionists back away from that and just do the ape to human stuff, but it still does not answer the basic question of why if we came from a single cell, and there are not creatures turning into different species with partially formed arms or legs (since such a complex thing cannot occur in one mutation).

Thus the latest inference is punctuated equilibrium and here we are.