[My2Cents]

Evidence for the "evolution" within species is not at issue here. That "evolution" can give rise to new species has never been proven, has never been shown in a lab or in the fossil record, and it is only the interpretation and extrapolation of the evidence for micro-evolution to the macro- that gives any credence to the overall Darwinist view.

Your inability to see that is disturbing, but I suppose that you have the public schools to blame for that.

[js1138]

That "evolution" can give rise to new species has never been proven, has never been shown in a lab or in the fossil record.

Everything you eat is either a species that has arisen in modern times or an animal that feeds on species that have arisen in historical times. All the grains we eat and feed to our livestock are recent mutations. They cannot survive without cultivation. They are macro-mutations. They resulted from changes in chromosome count.

Even Michael Behe acknowledges that nearly all macro-evolution can be explained by accumulation of small changes. And the one instance he insists was the result of direct intervention by God — the bacterial flagellum — is the bugger responsible for the recent contamination of spinach. Some signature of God.

[b_sharp]

"That "evolution" can give rise to new species has never been proven, has never been shown in a lab or in the fossil record, and it is only the interpretation and extrapolation of the evidence for micro-evolution to the macro- that gives any credence to the overall Darwinist view.

I take it you are denying that modern Cetaceans have evolved from land animals despite the number of transitional fossils, genome comparisons and the occasional whale with hind legs?

How about Archaeopteryx? Most creationists tend to place Archaeopteryx in with all birds. If this is the case then the change from the archaic bird 'Archaeopteryx' to modern birds must be nothing but micro evolution. Is this what you believe? If not where do you place Archy?