Evolution is an undeniable fact!

There is no problem,i am quite new to this site too. How do i know that macroevolution and microevolution are the same processes? First of all,the statement is not silly, it is supported with mountains of evidence. And you mention that without observing macroevolution we cannot prove it. I explained that in my previous answer. You do not always need a direct proof for something if you have a lot of evidence to support it. The genetics are well studied and observed,and Darwin's theory was just verified by the scientists that dissected the idea of genetics.Observing macroevolution in a lifespan of a human being is quite impossible,however the history tells us about selection. There are 2 types of selection: Natural selection and artificial selection. I would like to talk a little bit about artificial selection. We know that dogs have come from wolves. Throughout the history,when man domesticated the first wolves,he learned how to get the traits he wanted. By eliminating aggressive wolves from the picture and letting the more calm ones to breed,man began the domestication of wolves (by artificial selection). Man,again,selected pups with most desirable traits,letting them breed. I have to state that never in history a wolf gave birth to a dog. That is just the thing that would disprove evolution,however it happened over a long time period. Now we have over 100 different breeds of dogs that were created by man for different needs. For example the farmers needed strong dogs and herding dogs for help with the cattle,so they were selected just for that. The other branch led to the small dogs that were more suitable for cuddling and indoor life etc. Now,the wolves and dogs are in the same genus (canis),but NOT the same species,they are different species! So my conclusion is that artificial selection is evolution under much faster rate,because it has been clearly guided,and there were no instability in the whole process. Or how about the cauliflower,broccoli and cabbage? These are all cousin-vegetables.They are still considered same species,but they are very different,and it has been proven that these vegetables have common ancestor that was a plant growing along side the English channel. If we have tons of evidence for artificial selection for changing species (from wolves to dogs) or different plants from the same species,then we have concluded that changing "kinds" is really possible. As for natural selection,it is more unstable process guided by nature itself.I have an example.When Darwin traveled around the world and went to the Galapagos islands,he saw the giant tortoises,but there was a twist. There are many islands that differ from one another in,say,the food source. Simply the bigger islands were filled with vegetation allowing tortoises there to grow rounder shells.As for the smaller islands where there was barely any vegetation,there tortoises adapted to have smaller shell,extra long neck and legs so they can stretch up to bite a cactus. After that, Darwin discovered another species of tortoise that was much smaller,but lived in South America,yet the two species looked very alike. Or how about the modern day science that proves common descent? Scientists have looked at the human genome and discovered an inactive gene for growing tails (for when our ancestors had tails). Also they managed to activate the gene in chicken for growing teeth,and at about 18th day of the incubation the chick grew teeth! These mutants cannot live so much so the chick died,but the light was shed on the evolution of life from a common ancestor. The fossil evidence prove that bird-like dinos grew teeth,and that the gene got deactivated because birds stopped using them. Basically,i can go on like this for days. There are mountains of evidence that prove evolution by natural selection. As for the fossils,the atoms of every living thing is here on earth,and in space also.I am saying that fossil record will forever be incomplete,but fossil record is just another factor in favor of evolution,complete or not. We will probably never have the exact picture of all the creatures that lived on earth since the life began,but we can prove that macroevolution is indeed a fact,just like microevolution. I will add the Richard Dawkins's quote: "Today the theory of evolution is as much open to doubt as the fact that Earth goes around the Sun." Even if we did not have fossils,evolution would still be proven by genetics,which Richard Dawkins also quoted. I know this will be a very immature statement,but it will make you think: The fossils prove that back then there were giant dinosaurs and terrifying lizards,but now there is no sign of them,and back then there was no sign of humans,but here we are now. Of course we can determine approximate age of the fossil using radiometric dating or carbon dating,but that only proves that there had to be some change during all those millions of years, so that we, as a species, can walk the Earth. I know that micro and macro evolution are the same process because of the supporting evidence from genetics that is indestructible. I would recommend everyone to watch this documentary i posted if you haven't already,it is amazing http://www.youtube.com... I hand the debate back to my opponent...good luck!