So you keep saying, yet you have not layed out what those major differences are and how they act in different ways. Restating that you think there are big differences is not substantiation of your argument, its just a boring argument from incredulity and ignorance.
I have already said what macroevolution would be.
But, here are the major differences:
*Microevolution makes tiny variations to a certain organism, these variations stay within the kind of the organism.
*But macroevolution would require big changes which would go outside the kind, and they wouldn't be just variations, they would be huge changes to the look and substance of an organism
*Microevolution happens, it has been observed
*Macroevolution doesn't happen, has never been observed, and it can't happen
*Microevolution is what I would call "variations within a kind"
*Macroevolution is the common belief "evolution"
You keep saying it is different but you have not defined HOW it is different. You keep saying that it cannot happen but you don't SHOW how it cannot happen. You keep making the same boring argument from incredulity and ignorance. Again.
So far your only working definition of "macro"evolution is that you don't think it can happen, therefore you don't think it can happen. Not much use eh?
Macroevolution cannot happen, because the genetic code of an organism is preset, and it can't change with mutations to evolve or start evolving new organs or tissues or something. Because mutations are tiny changes that alter the code that is ALREADY existing.
Mutation do, have and will cause evolution to proceed.
Willing to support this claim with proof instead of just saying it? And I mean about macroevolution, not microevolution.
Therefore it can't happen? Just, and only, because YOU can't picture it? Don't you see how invalid this argument from incredulity and ignorance is? YOUR failure of imagination has no effect on the continued evolution of all life on earth. Or on anything in the universe.
That was not meant to be an argument. I was just answering a direct question. Please check that out.
What is ridiculous is the continued blind denial of the evidence that has been presented on the gradual evolution of the feather over substantial time and the evolution of numerous species along the way.
I cannot deny that which NO ONE has showed me. No one has showed me how a feather would have evolved from other tissue. Want to try?
Does a feather need to evolve from a scale?
Well if your claim is that a bird evolved from a reptile...
I know your theory says it all happened slowly, with many changes, over many generations. But, you have yet to supply an example of macroevolution, or part of it, that would be definitely relevant and precisely showing macroevolution.
"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
™ Version 4.2