On the other they could have been created over a long span of time. This of course is absolutely consistent with the fossil record. So if a species died out, God could have created a new one, maybe even one that resembled the original one. But then one can ask why this doesn't happen today.
Good questions, which evolution explains. Now, I'm not a young earther and my orientation is creation over a long span. One of the things that helped cement my doubts about evolution was the reliance on and the reliability of the fossil record -- I once asked on one thread whether the brontosaurus, my childhood's most famous dinosaur, ever exisited (It's a trick question, the answer is no) to illustrate what I think is an undue dependence on fossils.
If we were to find a fossil of a chichuahua and the fossil of a great Dane would we think they were different species? I suspect yes.
Which segues into the question what exactly is a species? A common definition is something along the lines of creatues that no longer interbreed in a natural environment, a question which can't be answered via fossils, much less at what point could creatures no long fertilize the seed of others something which most occur for macroevolution to be true.
Evolution does provide a good answer as to why chimps are more like man and mice are more like rats. On the other it doesn't answer -- at least very well -- why chimps and man share the same general habitat as do mice and rats.
I would be surprised to find macroevolution to be true but I wouldn't be shocked, nor would I reject macroevolution as a partial answer to the points you raise.
Probably what troubles me more than anything is the political aspects of the debate. I would like to see the opponents of macroevolution to be taken more seriously. You shouldn't have to be an atheist a la Crick or Hoyle to heard while questioning the theory.
That you'd be way wrong. You are talking about a stretch in bone morphology as big as the span between Eohippus and horse. Paleological zoologists, who assign species names, don't usually know doodly about what critters could have mated with what. They are just guessing, and from recent results from anthropology, probably guessing way off the mark on the conservative side about this.
That's one of the amusing things about this micro-macro fossil gap argument. It is an argument about perfectly arbitrary designations with no real gritty reality behind them. It is just academic bookkeepping. Nobody knows what could mate with what, and bone morphology designations could be (when we can check it out, almost always, in fact, are) way, way off kilter from species separation.
If dogs were extinct, would creationists be running around hooting about the Great Dane/Chihuaua gap? You bet your butt they would.
Than you should hope they undertake some other task soon. Like opposing macro-gravity, which, unlike ID or creationism, actually has a few serious champions amongst the community of leading professional scientists.
I know you're not a young earther but I included this possibility just for completeness and because there are indeed some YEC here in FR.
The brontosaurus actually did exist. It was only discovered later that a very similar fossil already had been found which was named apatosaurus. Now since these two fossils looked very similar it was concluded that they were of the same species thus the later name (brontosaurus) was redundant and in the end it has been discarded.
If we were to find a fossil of a chichuahua and the fossil of a great Dane would we think they were different species? I suspect yes.
Me too. However we could conclude that they were closely related as is the case with the horse and it's many progenitors. With fossils, size isn't that important than form.
Which segues into the question what exactly is a species? A common definition is something along the lines of creatues that no longer interbreed in a natural environment, a question which can't be answered via fossils, much less at what point could creatures no long fertilize the seed of others something which most occur for macroevolution to be true.
I think we had this discussion some time ago. Fact is you cannot apply the same species concept to fossils as you do to living organisms. What's more important with fossils isn't so much what species they belong to but how they are related to other fossils. So if you find a fossil you simply give it a name because you need to categorize it and the only way to do this is by the appearance of what is left. I don't know how similar two fossils have to be in order to be assigned to the same species so you have to ask a palaeontologist.
I don't know how macroevolution is exactly defined but if you define it as two populations being unable to interbreed then I think this has been observed. There was some sort of worm which has been separated from the original population for twenty years. After that they could not produce any offspring with those worms that remained in their original habitat.
Some time ago there have been ring species presented as evidence of micro- and macro-evolution. I don't know if tests have been made to find out whether the two subspecies at the end of the ring could be fertilized with each other but if this is not possible then you just have to wipe out one of the subspecies in between and you'd have macroevolution.
Also there is no known mechanism that would prevent macroevolution so if a population splits up and and the two new populations are no longer in contact there is no reason why they cannot diverge genetically until they are no longer compatible.
On the other it doesn't answer -- at least very well -- why chimps and man share the same general habitat as do mice and rats.
Honestly, I don't know why there is a problem.