And I had to facepalm there.

The difference between micro and macro-evolution is a major point of confusion between the Christian worldview and the Darwinian evolution worldview in today’s culture. Micro-evolution is the adaptations and changes within a species while macro-evolution is the addition of new traits or a transition to a new species. Micro-evolution is a fact that is plainly observable throughout nature. Macro-evolution is a theory that has never been observed in science. Evolutionist usually argue that those who believe in creation are ignoring the facts, however, there is nothing that evolutionist observe in science that creationist or Christians as a whole disagree with. The point of contention is not on what is observed, but the belief systems that interpret what is being observed. Nothing in the Bible contradicts science; it is the assumptions that evolutionists insert into their world view that contradict the Bible. Evolution is a hypothesis introduced as a possible explanation of origins. In this article, my goal is to explain the difference between micro and macro-evolution and show why micro-evolution cannot result in macro-evolution.

http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/macro-evol.shtml

Edit: And I will hope that you will check out that link. It has a lot of interesting info from the opposite side of the argument

I think the fossil record is the biggest scam in evolution debate. You expect everyone to believe that these things you found are billions of years old and hasn't been tampered with over that time and was in pristine condition when it was fossilized and that you know they are related to the same thing you say they are. And that it wasn't a deformed or mutated version of the same thing you say it is... And you expect everyone to believe that a process that takes a long time (fossilization) isn't disturbed by outside forces such as parasites and scavengers. yeah... right... You also expect us to believe that the fossils found are that of the same species evolving over time instead of a different species that's now extinct or perhaps the relative of the same animal but is now extinct.

Fact: The scientist with their technology are just guessing at what their experiment data means. We can't know for a fact if the data is accurate until that same method is used in a billion years and they find some fossils of "an ancient culture" (Us) and the results are the same.

@Rath

Please use more reliable sources. If I were to use Wikipedia as a source on a college paper then my teacher would fail me. And please stop with the petty insults

Fair enough, that last insult was fairly petty =P. I just find it amusing that someone is claiming the fossil record is a scam =P.

In any case those sources are not meant to be in depth - they are to give an overview of a subject, something that wikipedia is fine for.

If I were posting detailed evidence of anything I wouldn't use wikipedia, but it really is very good for giving a general overview of something.

However if you want;
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fhc/hyraco1.htm

Thank you for that.

I will  check out that link in the morning(Reading about evolution isn't too fun at 1 am)

I find it funny that someone is claiming fossil records are proof. I mean... youre telling me fossils are proof of evolution... I mean... as rare as fossils are (and they are very rare) you claim it proves of evolution...

So let me get this straight.

A. A rare occurance of finding fossils

B. All of them pristine condition that over the billions of years hasn't been tampered with.

C. With the limited amount of fossils found you can prove that the species found in these fossils are all related when the fossils found are years and years and years apart and they weren't deformed or mutated or tampered or damaged.

Another huge problem for evolutionists lies in the nature of the fossil record, i.e., the only physical record we have of life in the past. As is now being admitted by my evolutionary colleagues, the fossil record gives no clue that any basic type of animal has ever changed into another basic type of animal, for no in-between forms have ever been discovered. Each basic type is distinct in the modern world and in the fossil record, although there is much variation within these basic types. While gradual, "Darwinian" evolution has always predicted that in-between forms would one day be found, the current rage in evolutionary circles is the concept of rapid evolution, or "punctuated equilibrium"—proposing that small isolated portions of a larger population evolved rapidly and left no fossils. But where is the evidence that they evolved at all?

Even though the gaps in the fossil record are found between each basic animal type, there are two huge gaps, which should be emphasized. The evolutionary distance between single celled organisms and the vast array of multicellular, highly complex marine invertebrates precludes even rapid evolution. In the supposedly 600-million-year-old layers of rock designated as Cambrian (the first appearance of multicelled life), sponges, clams, trilobites, sea urchins, starfish, etc., etc., are found with no evolutionary ancestors. Evolutionists don't even have any possible ancestors to propose. And then the gap from marine invertebrates to the vertebrate fish is likewise immense. To make matters worse for the evolutionists, fish fossils are also found in Cambrian strata. If evolution is true, fish must have evolved from something, and invertebrates must also have evolved from something. Evolution has no ancestor to propose, but the evidence exactly fits the creation model, for creation insists that each animal type was created fully formed, with no evolutionary transition.

http://www.icr.org/article/there-evidence-against-evolution/

@dsister. Firstly the cambrian isn't the first appearance of multi-celled life. Merely a faster than normal expansion of it.

http://www.geol.queensu.ca/museum/exhibits/ediac/ediac.html

Now what are these basic types you're talking about? Are humans a basic type in your opinion? Because in that case how do you explain things like this;