Replies

Try googling the phylogenetic trees. You're basically insisting that I provide a name for every point along a continuum, which no one can do. And then, maybe you can answer this question, which I found here:

I see convincing proof of microevolution, but not macroevolution. What happened to the fins, gill slits, scales, mud puppy legs, claws, feathers or whatever there was before it looked like a horse? They all look like horses to me. Also, the assertions in the quoted passage are just straw men. The author can't win the logical argument so he'll make the opposition look like morons by claiming they have beliefs that they don't.

Well, it's time for me to stretch my Neanderthal knuckles and drag them over to the wife and retreat to our cave. It's been interesting and I truly appreciate all the links that everyone was kind enough to provide. Thanks.

The only reason "microevolution" exists is that the evidence of evolution is so voluminous that the charlatans who sell young earth creationism had to come up with *some* way to explain away the evidence while still claiming to support young earth creationism. Scientifically, the only difference between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" is the scale. Furthermore, "microevolution" is not supported by Genesis any more than "macroevolution" is.

BTW, you might want to look again at the earlier "horses". They look more like dogs. It took several million years for a distinctly equine animal to develop.