[plusone]

Fair enough. And I agree that natural forces will force a species to adapt to its environment. I beleive in, what is called 'micro evolution'. But it is a huge leap to suggest that such small changes will result in a species transcending into anothr, and over long periods of time, will become something entirely different. This is my complaint with 'macro evo'n', that there seems to be no proof of it. Micro, yes, we can see this. (Selective breading has been going on for thousands of years, and though it is ID, it still shows what variance there exists within a species. But that is all. There is a certain amount of 'free play' within the genetic structure that allows this partial divergence, it is how a species can adapt. It is what Darwin saw with the finches on the Gallopagos. But this is just adaptation, varietization, etc. How do you go the next big step and link this to general, macro evo'n? What evidence is there to support such a claim?

[ccmay]

What evidence is there to support such a claim?

Recapitulation of lower species in embryology.

-ccm

[Ichneumon]

But this is just adaptation, varietization, etc. How do you go the next big step and link this to general, macro evo'n? What evidence is there to support such a claim?

Here you go: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution.

Note that this is 29+ *separate lines* of evidence for macroevolution. Each type of evidence is supported by literally thousands (in some cases, millions) of individual pieces of evidence and experimental results.

[exDemMom]

How do you go the next big step and link this to general, macro evo'n?

What is that old saying? Something like, a journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step? Evolution is exactly like that, one little step after another, until an organism results that is no longer the same species as the original organism.There is a certain amount of 'free play' within the genetic structure

I can't imagine what you're referring to; what is the nature of the "free play"?