Stuff you SHOULD know (or at least think about).

This can be an interesting discussion... If you can keep your emotions in check and have an open mind. People can get very heated about this discussion. Do a Google search for micro or macro evolution and you will get TONS of "argument" from both sides. They both "prove" themselves very well. But in the end, whether or not you believe or disbelieve comes down to FAITH. "Faith in your 'proof' is the key". (After huge readings, I personally don't buy the Macro-evolution argument... But what do I know)

To start, some definitions of sorts;
Micro Evolution - When a species adapts itself over generations... For example a species of brown frogs evolves over generations, into essentially the same frog species that is now green (it's environment has changed from a brown to a predominantly green surrounding, so through generations, the frog species changes to adapt it's own color to green).
Macro Evolution (theory) - When a specific species changes over generations into a different specific species (a frog turns into a cow... Or a trout (a fish), turns into a salamander (an amphibian)).

Evidence of the FIRST type of evolution is abundant. It isn't a theory.

Evidence of the SECOND type of evolution is LITERALLY NON-EXISTENT.

Now we could actually prove micro-evolution easily. Take a species of brown frogs out of their brown environment, and place them into a controlled green environment... We could actually see, over years and many generations, this species of frog, turn green.

How about MACRO-evolution? I can't find any real proof, how about you? Yes, lot's of "fossil record", and microbiology speculation, but no real proof (SHOW ME a fossil that is half Rhipidistia and half Ichtyostega!) . The general "fish-to-amphibian" transition" assumption has been that the earliest amphibians evolved from the order of fish, the Rhipidistia. However, there are major differences between the earliest assumed amphibians, the Ichtyostega, and its presumed fish ancestor (the Rhipidistia). The differences are not simply a few small bone changes but are enormous structural differences between the fish Rhipidistia, and the amphibians, Ichtyostega. There should be a great, HUGE fossil record of SOMETHING in between shouldn't there? Wouldn't the creatures which were half-fish and half-amphibian have lived and died for many, many generations as they "evolved" from one to the next creature? Where are those fossils?

I guess you have to take macro-evolution on FAITH eh?