Macroevolution: Its all around us...

I've spent the past two hours carefully reading all posts, and have yet to find any credible examples of vertical transformation. I have, however, found numerous references to instances of horizontal variation (particularly EZscience's original thread starting post) - exactly how is this proof of "macroevolution all around us"? There has been no example of boundaries crossed between kinds.

Aye, and it’s a logical choice to be part of that camp. It's simple and irrefutable - what more could you want? The only credible references I keep seeing are those of horizontal variation, hardly proof of "macroevolution all around us"

"Dogs giving birth to cats" is just a simplistic description many people use for the process of macroevolution. I just meant I'm a firm believer in the boundaries between kinds. But that wasn't my point - I was referring to the lack of vertical transformation evidence. Something you'd think you'd find in a thread titled "macroevolution: It's all around us"

Hey EZscience,What you've just mentioned I already knew, but the separation of gene pools does not support the process of macroevolution - because they're still of the same species. Unless there was observable evidence pointing towards a species "following an independent evolutionary trajectory" (and not just belonging to a separate gene pool), then I don't see how this benefits the theory of macroevolution in any significant way.

Ok, maybe I caused some confusion with my wording (being involved with law enforcement, I don't come in contact with concepts like macroevolution every day). What I was referring to was any evidence that shows species (such as the Euro Corn Borers) crossing the boundary between kinds. The examples you've given are still operating within limits specified by the DNA of the particular organism.Maybe my definition of macroevolution is a little simplistic, but I take it from the dictionary definition of Large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups. This is what I’m referring to when I say that the examples given previously have not given sufficient evidence to support the formation of new taxonomic groups. Speciation is in no way proof of evolution — just a reshuffling of what already existed. To quote a site I visited recently on speciation — there is no new genetic information, just the physical rearrangement of the genes on one chromosome technically called a 'chromosome translocation
You’ll find it here: Missing Link | Answers in Genesis I'm curious as to where evidence might be to support the notion that macroevolution will result in organic evolution from one kind to another. There is of course a limited amount of variation permitted within the permanently fixed kind, but that’s a separate issue from vertical transformation. Again, there’s no evidence to suggest the previous examples have strayed from their DNA confinements.As for macroevolution not being a theory — I can type it into a search engine now and come up with thousands of instances of it being referred to as exactly that; many of which are sites promoting evolution.

I think it is obvious to all who are familiar with the evolution vs creation debate that there is a difference in opinions as to what exactly best defines a "kind". My definition is that of a species bound by the same DNA code barrier. Here's a link to show the exact complexity of defining "kind" between creationists and evolutionists.
Missing Link | Answers in Genesis As for the "DNA confinement" - that was merely another term for "the DNA code barrier" And you'll find that evidence here:
Page not found – Exchanged Life Discipleship