MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?

You are a prime example.That you differ from your parents is microevolution.That you differ from your ape-like ancestors of a few million years ago is macroevolution.

No, what you are doing is trying to obfuscate the whole issue because you have chosen not to believe in evolution no matter what the evidence is.I gave you classic examples of microevolution and macroevolution, but you seem to require that they be directly "observed" and now you want to argue about the definition of "observed."Face it, evolution happened.The whole apes-to-humans scenario that paleontologists have described actually happened.Ancient tribal myths that say otherwise are inaccurate.

There is a significant error in your last image.The human line did not lead from Caucasian to Negroid to Mongoloid.

You are spouting pure nonsense, and off-topic nonsense at that.If you want to discuss human races then start a new thread for that subject. That's something I studied in graduate school and have quite a good library on.

Something like 3.8 billion years later and we aren't running out of fuel yet.Maybe there's something wrong with the way you are thinking about evolution.

There are about a third of a million separate species of beetle, all presumably descended from a common ancestor.It is clear to all but creationists that there is more overall diversity among those third of a million species than there was in the original ancestor. Mutations and selection caused this.Your argument fails for this and many other reasons.

Only a subset of creationists believe things like that.Scientists (you know, those folks who go where the evidence leads) have concluded otherwise.

Not all alternatives are of equal value, not are they supported equally by scientific evidence."The moon is made of green cheese" is a good example. It is an alternative explanation without any scientific evidence to support it, hence its value is nil.Many of your "alternatives" fall in the same category.

Creationist fantasies and scripture are not scientific evidence.

For most species, changes are hard to see, but there are some examples of more rapid speciation which have been given in these threads.I can see how you might not expect speciation in just 6000 or 4350 years, but we have evidence of over three billion years so there's been lots of time.

Loss is necessary?Not so. What is necessary is change!

Would you rather that science not correct errors?

But not all ways of interpreting data are of equal value. So far religion, philosophy and similar ways of interpreting real-world data have been immense failures. Science, while not perfect, is finding out things, correcting errors, and producing very useful results. Science has some ideas on this subject, but is still working on it. On the other hand, there are some 40,000 world religions, each with a slightly different or vastly different explanation for origins, and in lot of cases the explanations are mutually exclusive or contradicted by real-world evidence. I don't consider that a very good track record, nor something to be emulated.

Preachers are always complaining that scientists are playing God, but all too often, their confusion is the result of preachers playing scientist--The Sensuous Curmudgeon.

Religions are notorious for not subjecting their beliefs to tests against evidence. Typically, when there is a disagreement over interpretation of scripture or belief, you will get a schism--that's why there are so many different religions and denominations/sects within religions.It is common to have, for example, young earth believers state that the evidence doesn't matter--if it contradicts the young earth belief the evidence is wrong somehow.So, thanks, but I'll stick to science and you can have religion and any of those other fuzzy subjects.

Does it not sometimes bother you that you make so many basic mistakes in your pronouncements?Does it ever occur to you, perhaps, that a lot more of your opinions and beliefs may be wrong?