Ah, I'm sorry, I did miss your saying this.
I just find it so interesting that ya'll agree with the specifics of the theory, and only disagree when his theory contradicts you other beliefs.
I find it interesting your attempts to seperate 'micro' and 'macro' changes, as if big changes weren't related to little changes. Your experience proves this untrue in everything you observe. If you make a bunch of small changes to something, you will end up with a very different something.
As for the young Earth evidence, no, I'm afraid I haven't seen anything even the least little bit compelling. In fact what I read makes it clear we have two very different ideas about what "evidence" means. But I love reading the stuff. It makes for an awesome story, and would make a tremendous movie someday.
And anything is possible. I certainly could be wrong.
That's not true. Darwin made legitimate observations with reasonable data that led to extremely far-reaching supposition. I have no problem with his basic conclusions about adaptation/natural selection. But his ultimate conclusion, namely that simple matter becomes complex organisms, is faulty. Even modern science acknowledges that since he had no concept of DNA or the details of biology as we know them today, he made serious errors.
Even you must agree that his suppositions about evolution are not provable. Based on the data he gathered, he could not effectively demonstrate that species ever changed one to another or that new species evolved from lesser ones.
Seems to me that we are at an impasse. That being - you insist that adaptation = micro = macroevolution, they are all one and the same, and therefore, in your mind, I pick and choose according to my belief system. I insist that adaptation = micro, which does NOT = macro, and therefore cannot convince you that my opinion has any merit.
Like I said before, no matter how much time you add to it, there is simply no evidence of one species changing to another. Not in the fossil record, and not observable presently. That is the issue.
If you believe that many small changes eventually make big ones, and that minor internal changes will eventually change the species altogether, point me to evidence of that. It must be out there somewhere, right? If not, please tell me why it isn't readily available, if not trumpeted.
Darwin himself said “Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed. But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?”