Evolution is a coherent theory with significant amounts of data to establish its veracity.

It did not surprise me that you believe in evolution. You yet need to explain why there are some any types of creatures, did I not say if you were allowed only to see one creature you would see it as a created thing not evolved? Mice and rabbits may seem there is a connection 86 million years ago, I think because they have the same creator. Would you not us the same material in different project? The one reason why evolution is very convicting is because there are so many types of creatures. I bet that if there was only birds on earth no other creature, evolution would not enter your mind. No doubt. You did not reply back on the father giving his child a creature. "There is no distinction between micro evolution and macro evolution." Are you saying that micro and macro evolution are the same? Now knowing evolution is a false theory I can see that difference. Micro evolution - A variation with in a species of creature. Example - Eagle and humming bird. Macro evolution - A variation between two species of creatures. Example - Snake and polar bear. "Pretending there is a distinction is an attempt to make it seem like a different mechanism is used." There must be other wise the species would remain the same. Like I said in the comments, is not there a change from walking to getting on a bike? (Waking represents one species, the bike is another.) As you climb apone the bike, you stop walking yet you are not cycling. By wording let me show you the evolution on how to get on a bike from walking Walking, Calking, Cylking Cycking. Arr here comes the common ansector part, Cycling, The ing part of the word means that it has the same means of doing. Like this you would get this also happening in creatures, like half of one animal and half of another. If you said.... "Well walking and cycling are two complete activities, so why would they merge. They are both (like some creatures) at the top of the tree. You do not need a bike to walk or to walk a bike." And I will say... "Yes, but in opinionated thinking different creatures may be equal, like cycling and walking people may think walking is better and funnier, we as humans have different views on which creature is better. This is were in the evolutionary tree you think the lines connecting each animal up are actually linked" I hope you are aware it is a drawing? I would not believe it if you say "No I am not aware, the drawings actually happened" As you have never seen the drawing occur in nature. Also like the sketch of the evolution of ape into human. (I am aware you think a human is a ape.) As I was saying the lines are linked to gather but the creatures are not linked to another creature. In the first video. The scientists only implied macro evolution, they did not explain it. The video was about micro evolution, which is a result of natural selection. The scientists would expect macro evolution to occur as there are so many types of creatures. More than there are types that there are humming birds. I completely agree on all micro evolution. "niche". Does the niche not allow the same species "jump ahead" ? "Monkeys and dogs are both Boreoeutheria" According to you all creatures have the common ancestor. The first cell. I know that God designed every kind of creature. So according to you, will some monkeys become different species to other monkeys over time? Is this not what you are saying? I am saying that this is impossible since to justify what a better monkey is would be down to a opinionated view. No monkey can expire being a...Monkey lol. So by having a natural party on this matter would be down to natural selection. Nartual selection keeps to own breed of monkey moving forward together. In a fair and even manner. But monkeys will remain monkeys as there is no limit, (like you said evolution does not have a goal) therefore there I no limit or no goal with in the species of monkey. So as you believe in macro evolution where does this limit end to allow a new species to arise from a existing species? As there are no limits. No doubt. "Horses and zebras share a common ancestor about 2 million years ago." I also believe the earth is no more than 6000 years old. Evermore according the award winning series "Walking with Dinosaurs" and "Walking with Beasts" The zebra existed like today 3.5-2 million years ago. "must be present for all species which exist on the planet." I saw a error where if you have a basic life form according to you this is where all creatures came from. Yet you said disease. A disease can only take effect if the target is fordable. You also said that disease is needed to give other breeds and species the availability to improve. But if I take you back to where life according to evolution began. You have basic life forms, (jellyfish) if a disease was to occur, as all life is very basic at this stage the disease would over come it's target and kill it off. And all the rest of the basic life forms since there is little difference between species as it is early on in the evolutionary processes. After all a disease is more advanced than a certain breed as it has the ability to kill off the target. So how did a basic breed like a jellyfish over come a disease which is more advanced, would you say mutation? This is still a problem as a mutation is a result of a failed species or breed, how do you explain this? "In colder climates, those individuals with longer hair or thicker coats might be slightly more able to have more offspring with longer hair or thicker coats." Yeah so in till the climate changes again the breed would remain as it is. Since there are species all over the world and with in the species all breeds live in all climates. Example: Bear: Polar bear, grizzily bear, panda bear and brown bear, mother, father and baby bear lol. No seriously though all these bears exceed in different climates around the world. So what makes you think that if a "say" sold climate changes the polar bear would change species? As a example. I understand that bears in colder climates have small ears and thinker coats with more fat. But there are also bears in warm climates with larger ears and thinner coats and less fat. It is not a question of a change in species it is a question of will there be a new kind of climate. No doubt. Can you think of one new climate? If not so this may solve your case in understanding why a breed of one species does not jump to another breed in another species. As the climate leads breeds to breed new breeds. Through natural selection. So as there is all types of climates on earth no animals can evolve through a macro stage. Although it still would be impossible. Micro evolution is still valid as if you placed a polar bear in a warmer climate over some time the polar bear would loose fat and the fur would get thinner. And the ears would become smaller. I still have over a 1000 letters. What I have said occurs for the rest of what you have written. All what you have told me (including the videos) are based on micro evolution. You still have not explained to me how Macro evolution can occur apart from you assuming that it has based on the time you think earth has been around and based on the amount of variation of species. You have yet to make me go "Ah ha yes, so is that's how macro evolution occurs." Nice video of the dog climbing the tree lol I did say the odd one or two dogs can do that, and I am right over wise the dog would not be on the news. Do you not understand my points? Why can I question evolution but not the speed of light? (e=mc2). Or gravity? (f=ma). The whole debate over this in my opinion proves evolution wrong, you never see a debate on gravity or the speed of light. This also shows a divine line between what is science and religon is (Jesus hated reilgons by the way). Evolution is a religon. That all religons as you would agree are questionable and science is not. If science is wrong it is not science.