It's not that difficult. Some of the creationists believe that a half dozen distinctly different races could EVOLVE from an original race in only 6 thousand years. What kind of changes could we expect over 6 million or 6 billion years?
You don't need to reply. The answer is obvious to all but the blind.
The "races" of mankind do not comprise different species. They are not even considered to be different subspecies! From the darkest aborigine to the lighest European, we are all "Homo sapiens sapiens." Every domesticated animal or plant exhibits much more variation than human races. Chihuahuas and Great Danes and every other dog are precisely the same species, yet all or most of their variation has occured in historical times. The same with cats, horses, pigeons, apples, cabbages, and hundreds of other species.
It is not hard to explain the development of various races in a few thousand years due to genetic mutations and isolation. This has not resulted in new species. Different races can interbreed and produces perfectly healthy and fertile offspring.
The truly hard thing to explain is how in 100 million years the coelacanth has not changed one iota. How is it logical to believe that coelacanths (or a similar species) evolved into humans and whales and penguins and ostriches and snakes and mice and turtles and every other vertebrate species (except fish, of course), yet the coelacanth as a species has not evolved at all? I don't have enough "faith" to believe that. This is one of the things that convinced me that evolution is not true.
Similarly horseshoe crabs, bats, and almost every other species have not changed at all since there first appearance in the fossil record.
I agree with you. The more I read and understand both arguments, the more silly evolution becomes. There are more holes than I can count. Here is a little something that was written by an evolution debunker that you may find interesting and may help to solidify your beliefs even more.
"There is a big difference between micro and macro-evolution. No one denies micro-evolution, the adaptation of a species to different environments. However, macro-evolution is much more than adaptation, it is a transformation of a species into another much more complex one. Macro-evolution is clearly required to occur if evolution is true. Otherwise there is no way that we could have gotten from bacteria to humans without the intervention of The Creator.
The theory of evolution posits that step by step through the millenia since life began, species have been transforming themselves into new species each one more complex in their organisms than the previous ones. They posit that fish developed legs and started walking on earth. They posit that reptiles grew wings and became birds. They posit that reptiles again grew mammary glands, became live bearing, and turned themselves into mammals. These transformations by small adaptations were very questionable even when first made. However, genetics and specifically the discovery of DNA has made them quite impossible. Adaptations can occur by single point mutations in a gene. Transformations require not just a totally new gene, but many new genes to be created to support those transformations. The impossibility of this happening by random mutations (and there can be no selection in the creation of a gene since there is no function until the gene is completed) is astronomical. The possibility of thousands of new genes being created for the millions of species living and dead is a total impossibility.
Speciation while a prerequisite to such transformations is not proof of macro-evolution. A species (especially with the loose terminology of evolutionists) can arise (according to evos) by merely being geographically isolated from the rest of the group (guess Robinson Crusoe was not a man anymore because he ended up in a deserted island), it can also (according to the evos) become a new species just because the bird-songs it sings are not recognized for mating by other individuals having all the same characteristics. The classic definition of speciation is the ability to mate and produce offspring. This however is not sufficient because the two species can still have essentially the same characteristics and still not be able to produce offspring with each other. In other words they will still be birds, they will still be fruit flies, they will still be fish. They can be the same in all essential characteristics and still not be able to produce progeny. This is still micro-evolution because the species, neither one, has acquired any new faculties, and has not become more complex in any way.
So to sum up. Macro-evolution is a transformation requiring new genes, more complexity and new faculties. In terms of genetics, it requires at a minimum the creation of more than one new gene. In terms of taxonomy it would require an organism to change into a different genus." -gore3000
Fregards and happy debunking :) ~MM