These threads are such a waste of time. If someone can't be bothered to go through the vast amounts of research that has been done or is too dull to comprehend what it means, a few paragraphs in a video game forum definitely won't convince them.

"and as far me not supporting a theory without concrete evidence even though the scientific community says otherwise? That's a completely different story, and one best kept to myself."

It's absolutely pointless arguing with the above. It's like arguing with a 4 year old with his fingers in his ears.

You're missing my point...I was saying I support microevolution, but am not fully convinced about macroevolution. I've been told that I'm misunderstanding it, so I'm asking for it to be clarified.

But whatever you say...

With yet another attempt at a thread that will fail to convince anyone to believe otherwise, and this has to be the weakest, most perfunctory one yet, one has to question whether the point is is really just some exercise in affirming one's own religious beliefs, because no one else here is buying.

If one wantsto believe in magical djinn that can conjure anything and everything out of nothing, that's great

There are many books on the subject written by experts in the field, written at a level where dullards like you and I can understand them. If those books don't convince you, you can enroll in the biology department at your local univesity. If you still aren't convinced after that you're a dullard.

Why Evolution Is True by Jerry Coyne is pretty good. You can start with that.

The example you're looking for would be how an ancient land animal (probably something that would look closest to a modern day hippo)  evolved over millions of years into whales. Whales actually have underformed leg bones that aren't connected to the rest of their skelleton, quite interesting.

Ladies and gentlemen, it's extremists like this that make me hate religion, and laugh at its complete lack of intelligence.

Microevolutions take place. There is no doubt about that. Over hundreds of millions of generations, these microevolutions add up, and although when you look through the years at normal speed very little noticeable change takes place, comparing a species today to its ancestors 100 million years ago will show you that enormous changes have taken place.

Think of the time since the fall of the Roman empire and multiply it by roughly 2.3 million and you have the sort of timescale we're looking at here.

I posted a semi-joke post earlier showing how different selections pressures has resulted a wide variety of different domestic dog breeds. That's essentially macro-evolution in practice and shows clear phenotypic differentiation between different breeds descended from a common ancestor. 

What some people earlier have said about minor changes in micro-evolution add up and essentially lead to macro-evolution is essentially correct. However, we are still discovering new methods that micro-evolution can advance in the field of epigenetics that can result in a relatively quick change at the macro scale.

Basically, it's not all down to our genes but also how are genes are expressed (which helps explains how we can share nearly 50% of our genes with a banana!). A change in environment results in differences in the expression of our genes. Some being turned off, others stimulating RNA and protein production which essentially alters our body in some way. This expression pattern can then be passed on to our offspring (particularly when the mother is pregnant and changes affect the womb environment). This, on top of mutations and transposons can have major effects and lead to macroevolution as in the dog examples above.

Not that their aren't gaps in our knowledge, but the core of the macro-evolution theory is still correct.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=examples+of+macroevolution

Enlighten yourself.