[Tisthammerw]

Originally Posted by talisman

We simply DO see evidence for macroevolution.

refute the evidence in this article:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

I should hasten to remind you (or if I haven't said this already, make an overdue declaration) that I don't necessarily disbelieve macroevolution. There is indeed a lot to be said for it as you say, but the evidence in some cases has its limits for the orthodox theory. Take for instance the "change" category of evidence in the website you mentioned. It does indeed denote powerful evidence for macroevolution, but the point I made about extrapolating changes made via direct observation (in posts #43 and#55) still holds. Evolution may indeed predict "farther back we look back in time, the more different life should appear from the modern biosphere" as the website said, and I count this as predicted data in evolution's favor. However, orthodox evolution does not predict the pattern of gaps we see in the fossil record (see post #68). Additionally, the fossil record and much other evidence (e.g. homology) may indeed point to evolution happening but do not establish that the orthodox mechanism for evolution is correct. The point? The evidence is not all one-sided in favor of either theory, and I think this is something we should all recognize regardless of whatever side of the creation-evolution debate we adhere to.