Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution

Look again at those skulls. The first skull (A) is a modern chimpanzee, the last (N) is a modern human. Taken in isolation, I think you'd agree that to transition from chimpanzee to human would be described as macroevolution. But we also have these transitional fossils from the Australopithecines, whose skulls are morphologically similar to modern chimpanzees, through Homo habilis, erectus et al. showing this general trend of microevolutionary changes.
It is this that Taq, Coyote, Tanypteryx and others having been trying to get you to understand, that these gradual microevolutionary changes we see in species in the fossil record build up to what would be described as the macroevolutionary difference between humans and chimpanzees.Edited by Malcolm, : No reason given.

An often used analogy for evolution is that if you take one step in front of another you can eventually cross the united states from east to west coast. As I think of it, 'microevolution' is akin to staring at your feet through the journey, noting the gradual transition in terrain along the way, whereas 'macroevolution' is looking up every now and then and realising how much ground you've covered.
As I pointed out in Message 350 the transition of hominid skulls appear as examples of microevolution, with gradually increasing cranial capacity and less protruding jaw. But it's only when you look at the modern consequences of these changes i.e. humans and chimps, that you can identify a macroevolutionary change.