"Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism?

Well, i must say i did not even kow about such resembling animals! they're too cute.But my favourite animals are still the CAT and the RED PANDA, which is, undoubtedly, an interesting specie, actually not classified as an ursidae, like the GIANT PANDA, considered for a while as being part of the raccoon family. I know it has not much to do with the topic here, besides pointing towards the taxonomic problems, implying problems of reading and discussion among pure amateurs like me.Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Subphylum: Vertebrata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Carnivora
Suborder: Caniformia
Family: Ailuridae
Genus: Ailurus
Species: Ailurus fulgenswow, i can't seem to be able to post images. i'm new on this. i know i'll soon be helped.Edited by olivortex, : No reason given.

mm. i must be dumb or not fully awaken. can't import any image from another page. i may find a way later. anyway it doesn't matter that much.

Thank you! i'll study the copy/paste codes, etc. I'm really not a good geek... Computers sometimes call me names, even when they don't have any soundboard.It seems that the red panda case is far from being closed! that's exactly why i mentioned it and his "cousin" the giant panda. The few slight similarities can cast some doubt on the official taxonomy for these wonderful animals.You may know how we call a BAT in france...Back to topic: funny thing is that without a single drop of knowledge about evolution, biology or genetics, i had the feeling that "macroevolution" and "microevolution" were not necessarily to be confronted since it appeared, according to my reading of the scientific research in and out of the lab, that evolution is a continual, over time process.

You make a good point here. But ostriches have wings, and we could reverse the problem, maybe.

Once an ID supporter told me that i should use "common sense", and also liked to recall that science is, in the first place, observation of nature.I agree and when i look at an ape and then at myself, at a bat and then all gliding animals, a picture of a tasmanian "tiger" and then all hopping marsupials, a turtle and then a snake, i mean, i feel i'm using common sense. It's not a true scientific way of watching the animal kingdom, but i can't help myself, i always find wonderful coincidences everywhere.From this point of view, i can't understand why "macroevolution" scares some people so much. The concept of evolution is simply beautiful.

Hi.I've just browsed the last pages of this thread, regretting not being able to come more often on the forum. But i simply fell in love with this very funny but still relatively useful link infidel posted:
microevolution = macroevolution + time Thank you infidel, though it may never be an effective tool to make creationist understand what "overtime" means, we can try using it, just in case we're tired of words, and accused of simplicism or naiveness.Edited by olivortex, : No reason given.