@godschild. Thanks for your response. Your argumentation is still invalid, you still adopt arguments from incredulity to make your point. The change within/to a new species point is the micro/macro evolution point and is a great example of incredulity. You can't imagine it therefore despite the evidence you reject it. The whole argument is a massive red herring (which also evolved). Bilogists do use the term macro evolution to describe transitioning to new species. But macro evolutionary steps do not exist on there own, they are an accumulation of a large number of micro evolutionary steps. This is evidenced by tracing back how genomes of animals have changed but still share commonalities because of ancestry, the clincher is junk DNA, which when reactivated reinstates previous features. This would not happen from design (god or whomever). A unknown feature of evolutionary theory is that if it was discovered that macroevolutionary steps did occur eg a cat giving birth to a dog (a crass example but you get the point). That would invalidate evolution as it would suggest a whol new mechanism for speciation. An analogy I like is think of photocopying a document, then photocopying the photocopy, and so on. Each photocopy looks like the one before with tiny almost imperceptable variations. But if you compared the 100th copy with the 1st you would see signficant change. Then the 100th with the 1000th would probably look hugely different. If you had a rapidly changing environment you could think of a rapidly aging photocopier which would render change faster. In this anaology the paper is DNA which does not copy itself perfectly every time.
"I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence"...Doug McLeod.
