In science terms, both kinds of evolutions ARE facts. Evolutionary theory is the body of knowledge that explains them.

WTF?! Dude, I couldn't care less about young earth creationists, never mind the fact that I'm not even a Christian. I actually look up this info on my own.

Fair enough. That's why I said you either came to this conclusion yourself or got it from the 3 fruitcakes I mentioned (because this is a favourite point of all of those guys).

And I've already read that link. But there's a lot of logical fallacies in there, particularly the apes and humans part. It doesn't matter how much we spin circumstantial evidence to support our claims...macroevolution will remain a theory until concrete, undeniable proof is brought forward, with all parameters checked.

That link (and entire site) has pages and pages of fantastic evidence. If the content there can't convince you, very little else will.

Until then, like I said: Microevolution is what's established as an undeniable fact (and I have no doubts about any bit of its scope)...macroevolution is not even close to that point.

Ok but I obviously I don't agree.

Concerning humans and chimps... the evidence is already overwhelming there. Shared errors in human DNA and chimp DNA is compelling evidence for our relation, but even if you don't think it is then what about the clear evidence of our 2nd chromosome being a fusion of 2 great ape ancenstor chromosomes (which is well explained here: http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm)

I can understand your doubts, but I think the evidence is already concrete and undeniable. Hope you'll change you mind one day.

I guess all those fossiles were hide by sneaky scientists wanting to prove a point.

Extinction has nothing to do with Evolution, at least not in the way the Dinosaurs were said to have gone extinct.  

Two things.

1) The fossil record is one of the bodies of evidence that evolution is based on

2) Mass extinction events have heaps to do with evolution. Mass extinction empties a lot of biological niches - the extinction of the dinosaurs left all of the niches for large land fauna empty. Mammals filled the empty spots.

Although I don't the see the link between my post and your reply lol, I think it's pretty obvious that evolution was affected by the different great extinctions.

And to add to your argument, it's not only large land animals that were affected by the extinction between the Cretaceous and the Paleogene era (the dinosaur extinction). The most probable theory of that extinction is either mass volcanic activity or mass asteroid attack (!) that would have covered the upper sky with heavy dust that prevented light to properly reach the ground thus killing many kinds of plants. And then that lack of plants firsty affected the larger animals because of their higher food consumption but it also affected the whole food chain and killed many species.

The point was that the fact that things go extinct does not prove evolution happens.  The two are not intrinsically linked.  they effect one another, sure, but one oes not prove the other, which was the point of the thread. 

I suggest the OP picks up a Biology 101 textbook and reads about Darwin's observations about the Galapagos Islands birds and how Natural Selection paved a way for the evolution of different beak sizes among the birds of different islands. And we humans have not observed biological behavior long enough to note "reptiles evolving to birds" or whatever BS the OP posted. Give us a couple thousand years, then I'm sure we'll have evidence.

As for the guy claiming that microevolution is a fact and macroevolution is a theory: you're completely missing the point. BOTH microevolution AND macroevolution are theories and cannot be FACTS based on the principles of biology. If we were to claim that evolution were a fact, then we would assume that evolution is stagnant, which it isn't. The beauty about the Theory of Evolution and its derivatives is that it's constantly changing as we find new discoveries, thus evolution can never be a "fact" in terms of definition (though it does exist and happen daily).

Also, macroevolution is simply a series of microevolutions put together; they both explain the same concepts and observations only macroevolution is at a greater scale. In fact, the two terms are pointless because they explain the same thing, but for whatever reason many creationists choose to use macroevolution as a scapegoat or as the basis of their arguments because they don't have any other evidence to back their claims. If you're arguing against macroevolution but supporting microevolution, then you unfortunately don't know what you're talking about...

Also, I'm a religious person. But some of the nonsense a few creationists spew is sometimes embarrassing.

Here we go again.

Don't argue with this guy, he's just a troll. I'm fairly convinced he's not a creationist, his posts are usually like a parody of the worst creationist arguments. I think he just gets a kick out of annoying internet folk.

That's not how evolution works. A bacteria doesn't suddenly evolve into a fungus.

We have actually witnessed evolution in our lifetime. Fundamentally evolution means some individuals of a species changing sufficiently in its genetics to become a separate species. We've seen this happen a few times in the last 50 years or so with some viruses and prions. Canine parvovirus, for instance, only appeared in the 1970s and became a global disease of dogs within a few years. Before the 1970's there was no such disease as canine parvovirus. This disease evolved from the feline panleukapenia virus. These 2 viruses are as related to each other as humans are to chimps (i.e. 98%), but they are distinct species within the same virus genus.

Bovine spongiform encephalopathy is a prion disease that evolved from the sheep scrapie prion. Prior to the late 80's bse did not exist. Routine expose of cattle to scrapie infected feed (derived from boiled up sheep) over several decades eventually lead to the mutation of the scrapie agent such that it became a prion that was able to cause BSE in cattle and unfortunately vCJD in humans.

I'm not sure we've directly observed any splitting at the genus level, but given we've directly witnessed speciation it's not terribly hard to conceive of genus, family, order etc separation over much longer time scales of population separation and with much more varied environmental influences. The mechanisns are the same.