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

I am again fully aware that you believe that if micro evolution is watch-able you then would think that macro evolution is doable. Just like God, I would say and you even would say this universe but talking about earth is a creation, Like you I use the same belief system. That would it not be logical to say theres a creation (micro evolution) so there must be a creator (macro evolution). And that creator is God. Unlike you I consider to think there is a God is a belief. When really like God (actually I have felt His spirit in my room) but like God you can not see Him, hear Him, touch Him, smell Him or taste Him. You can neither sense macro evolution. You are implying logic to micro evolution but not to this creation. I am now thinking on writing a book on the Darwin Delusion. No only joking. I know micro evolution happens by the variation of creatures with in the same species, over more though, if you were to prove macro evolution you would sticky need to allow me to witness a change between one species to another with in my life span. I could not care where. The fossil record shows no proof, you are implying the same logic but backwards. As how would you know if the dead, now fossilized creature ever had young? It is very payola to suggest that my faith is a belief and yours is not. Like the scorpion which according to evolutionist has not evolved for over 400 million years. You would need faith to say that a monkey or any creature would evolve as the scoping has not. And I am suggesting that instead of macro evolution occurring but instead micro evolution occurs over and over. In that with in a species there is always one which is the less able (as we are the observers we can point out which creature one is better and worse with in species) one and a better the more able one. Again there is the smallest monkey in the world the albino Pygmy Marmoset next to the Mandrill the largest monkey related to the baboon. It would be alot easier and safer to hunt the Pygmy Marmoset rather than the Mandrill since they are in packs up to 200. The weaker one the Pygmy Marmoset is more venerable since there is more dang ours. This weaker more venerable species of monkey is holding back the whole kingdom of monkeys, it is like a change reaction. Smaller breeds of creatures hold back the larger less venerable creatures. Therefore like our body temperature the animal kingdom uses the same technique. I also believe in the 2nd law of thermodynamics, in which things decay and get less appealing. The same works in the animal kingdom where over periods of time with in the use of micro evolution species actually get worse and worse just like the panda thumb. The thumb may be growing smaller to an disadvantages. This panda bear may of ate much more bamboo in the past. Since pandas are rare, using a thumb to grabe bamboo may have been in full use. Now though as a pnad is a rare creature the hunt for bamboo to make houses, boats, torture, water wheels and there even a bikcal frame made from bamboo for good measure. Since bamboo is 99% of a pandas diet, there is no surprise that the panda would become a rare creature through adapting to it's main food source. Bamboo can disappear faster than a panda can adapt. This is just like micro evolution but creatures disimprove instead of improve. For example the saber tooth cat with large teeth since this cat there has never been a cat like that one. It is also a myteroy why it became exstict. Climate change apparently? Not really convincing when you have snow lepods. The Pika is a member of the rabbit and hare family. Micro evolution has no intentions. But the creature will always remain he it's species. The pika has ears more like a hamster than a rabbit. Quote from wikipedia.com " The pika may look like a hamster, but is actually a cousin of the rabbit." So it is not a rabbit-mouse. But further down the page the Pika is recalled as hamster like. This still does not mean it is a hamster. Humans can act hamster like too. Pika's like just like rabbits exsreet then eat the waste, quote "to extract further nutrition, before producing the final, solid, fecal pellets." - wikipedia.com There are around 30 kinds/breeds of Pikas ranging from the Turkestan Red Pika to the Gansu Pika. Which belongs like rabbits and hares in the Ochotonidae family. The Pika is a type of Ochotonidae. What you need to do is tell my how macro evolution can occur with out the use of millions of years. Pretend macro evolution is micro evolution. Explain macro evolution like you would with micro evolution. Could I make it more clearer. Macro evolution is not science but a mere belief. You do not debate over science but beliefs. This whole debate alone proves macro evolution is belief funded. Not science funded. Like me I would say God does exist, like you, would say macro evolution exists. "Mammals have hair, so you never ever see a reptile with hair, or a reptile expressing milk, or warm blooded reptiles. Hair, milk, warm-bloodedness are all very useful adaptations and yet do not jump branches." Therefore there should be separate evolutionary trees for different species. Not clumped in one. Does not make sense. Where the branch on the evolutionary tree splits in two what is happening there? If you say "the same what is happening now in nature" Then why on the evolutionary tree does it not show continues split of branches on the tree? And why does the end of the branch end in a straight line. I do not understand how you believe macro evolution as on a real tree, the tree only produces it's own kind. You do not get a tree with another type of tree growing from it. The whole evolutionary tree is a flaw. The pterosaurs meaning "winged lizard" is a lizard, there are flying bird, flying lizards and flying bats. Infact a flying mammals is called a bat, as the shape of a bat is used to fly, you can not get a flying pig. There is no limit to micro evolution. Example, not being able to fly will not allow a "say" penguin for having features. Infact again feathures are great insurlaters. Thats why there are feathered pillows, sofas...Etc. So to say a penguin is a full bird is very reasonable. The peak also as the penguin lives in a sea surrounded eviroment it would be logical to have a beak to nip up fish, and to browes through their feathures. How could a bird groom it's feathers with still having teeth? Grooming is very important as it keeps the bird hygienic. And even more importantly keeping the bird in the right condition to breed. I believe God has given animals the conscience to know weather or not a bird is in the right condition to breed, otherwise diseases would become more likely and finely killing off the species, similar to aids. As animals breed at a certain time of year, this would be a very lethal problem. Unlike humans we breed all year around so we can take one problem at a time. The half dinosaur half bird would have a tough time breeding. Macro evolution is simply a myth. Period! Saying penguins have yet to adapted wing for flight is possible, the bird will still be a penguin. I assume you are talking about the penguins which can not fly. Firstly the bird would need to loose weight (fat) but this will kill it off as fat keeps the bird warm. Since the bird lives in the coldest climate on earth why did it go there in the first place so why would it evolve wings to fly away? As you said the wings are there to swim and act like giant flippers. To lift them on the ice berg. With help of waves. "Ostriches similarly have non-functional wings." Yes does it mean if you have wings you need to use them, other wise you are evolving them? Like the penguin the wings may be used for balancing, as ostriches life on flat and wide open spaces the wings could be used to help curl up when sleeping. Wings are not only use for flying when you have a 6.5ft bird. Therefore being able to fly to survive is not needed. I'll continue the demolistion next time.