[Sabertooth]

I don't necessarliy have a problem with macroevolution per se. If it's proven or strongly indicated, I can live with that.

To be fair, this article doesn't claim that, only a hint.

Where I have a problem is the presumption of some that we have any real clue as to what might cause or drive macroevolution. It's there, I think, that we all need to concede that where the scientific evidence is concerned, "we really don't know" what causes speciation.

[WhatsItAllAbout]

You may be interested in this theard regarding the same subject: First Genetic Evidence Uncovered Of How Major Changes In Body Shapes Occurred During Early Animal Evolution

[realpatriot71]

We know that speciation is caused when a single species/group spilts and no longer mates. This can be caused by something as simple as river separating the two populations or one species does not recognize the "mating dance" of the other species. Now how changes occur at levels about genus, NO, we have no direct evidence of that ever happening, especially by mutation.

[RightWhale]

Just to be exoteric for a moment:
While I still don't "get" the controversy over evolution, I will add that there seems to be no verb form for the word speciation. There is specialize, derived from the French, to specify, to adapt, to concentrate on a specific profession. Perhaps we can use "specify" as the verb for speciation, but that would imply a conscious choice and we assume speciation and evolution are not the result of conscious decisions except by an effective deity.

[colorado tanker]

Well said, but it's a little difficult for early 21st Century man to admit he doesn't know evrything.