The micro- to macroevolution myth
Evolution is change in heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules. All life on Earth shares a common ancestor known as the last universal ancestor, which lived approximately 3.5—3.8 billion years ago.
First thing to note is that evolutionists from the world of mainstream science present their theory as a fact to the world via mainstream media like for example biased Wikipedia. But it should be obvious to anybody with a basic understanding of science that many of the statements are unprovable by science simply because they supposedly happened billions of years ago and are completely unobservable and irrepeatable. All those bold statements are based on certain assumptions which in case of evolution theory are derived from the philosophy naturalism. Evolution is the belief that a life form appeared on the earth and that that unique first life form changed into all other unique life forms known to us today. See Common Ancestry. All this supposedly happened merely by means of mindless naturalistic processes without any purpose in mind. Supposedly this fine-tuned universe popped into existence from nothingness by mindless naturalistic processes and then dead matter turned into living beings to become mindful and intelligent human life with the ability to ponder all these things. In order to seemingly support that fantastic story evolutionists say it supposedly happened in incredible amounts of time which they base on their self-invented philosophy called uniformitarianism. But what kind of evidence is there for that fantastic belief system? There are two kinds of biological evolution, one real and one imaginary. It is essential to understand the fundamental differences between microevolution and macroevolution because evolutionists themselves tend to ignore and omit them for obvious reasons...
The study of evolution can be performed on different scales. Microevolution reflects changes in DNA sequences and allele frequencies within a species over time. These changes may be due to mutations, which can introduce new alleles into a population. In addition, new alleles can be introduced in a population by gene flow, which occurs during breeding between two populations that carry unique alleles.
Microevolution encompasses observable changes within a species which causes variety within that species. It is limited by the existing genetic makeup of that species. Dogs descended from their ancestor the wolf. Wolves and dogs have the same features. No dog has ever evolved wings or any other feature not already present in the original genetic makeup of the wolf. Wolves never evolved into superwolves but they degenerated into inferior dogs largely as the result of artificial selection. A copy can not be better than its original. Microevolution shows that new specified information is not added to the existing genetic makeup of an original ancestor naturally. Therefore one kind does not change into another but rather changes into many variations of itself within the limits of the original genetic makeup of its ancestor. The driving forces of microevolution are mutations and selection.
In contrast with microevolution, macroevolution reflects large-scale changes at the species level, which result from the accumulation of numerous small changes on the microevolutionary scale. An example of macroevolution is the evolution of a new species.
Macroevolution is the belief that one unique species turned into another and that it happened by means of mindless naturalistic processes only. Macroevolution requires the creation and addition of new specified information to the genetic makeup. This is necessary for the acquisition of new functional features which were not already present in the lifeform. The first major problem with macroevolution is that nobody ever observed it. Nobody ever saw a dog evolve into anything but a dog. Or a fruit fly into anything but a fruit fly. Etcetera. Therefore this belief can not be called science. The definition states that An example of macroevolution is the evolution of a new species. This is a non statement. It's like saying An example of macroevolution is macroevolution. Because there are no examples of macroevolution in observable reality, much of Darwin's theory was built on speculation about the fossil record. But the fossil record and the Cambrian explosion show a much different picture of the history of life. Because there exists no scientific evidence for their unscientific belief evolutionists say that microevolution plus incredible amounts of time leads to macroevolution. They also included theoritical mathematical models into their equation. This is called neo-Darwinism. But in reality incredible amounts of time only make their theory more unscientific and theoritical mathematical models are based on assumptions. All of it is based on the unprovable philosophies uniformitarianism and naturalism.
The micro to macro myth
According to evolutionists...
It remains an open debate among scientists whether or not it [macroevolution] is solely the end product of microevolutionary processes or there is some other set of processes that causes higher level trends and patterns. ... For if there is enough change to form new species, and each species is slightly different from its ancestor, then simple addition shows that many speciation events can cause large-scale evolution over enough time.
source screenshot
Within evolution theory macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution. It is assumed that the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one, the only difference between them is of time and scale. Because science simply does not support their belief they have to mix in unscientific arguments. This they do by invoking mythical Father Time which plays a prominent role in the world of evolution next to Mother Nature. Evolutionists assume that microevolution and macroevolution are similar processes while in reality they are fundamentally different. By adding incredible amounts of time they try to make their theory less incredible. But incredible amounts of unobservable time only make their theory less scientific. The incredible amounts of time are based on their self-invented and unprovable philosophy uniformitarianism which in turn is based on their unprovable philosophy naturalism. It's one huge circular argument. There are many examples of microevolution which are often wrongfully presented as evidence for macroevolution by fanatic evolutionists. See for example the famous Fruit Fly. Darwin's finches are an example of polymorphism with natural selection, no finch ever turned into anything but a finch and no finch beak ever turned into anything but a finch beak. The famous peppered moth is an example of industrial melanism with natural selection, no peppered moth ever changed into anything but a peppered moth. These are examples of phenotypic changes like for example color or size within a kind which are limited by the already existing genetic makeup of that kind. This goes for all life forms.
The species problem
Darwin, Mayr, Simpson and others have taught us about species, but none has been broadly convincing on the basic questions of what the word 'species' means or how we should identify species. For its entire brief history, the field of evolutionary biology has simply lacked a consensus on these two related questions. Indeed, there was broader consensus before Darwin.
Last year, two papers were published proposing that our ancestors had sex with at least two kinds of archaic humans at two different times and places. Both Neanderthals and mysterious humans from Denisova Cave in Siberia interbred with ancient modern humans - and those liaisons produced surviving children, according to the latest ancient DNA research. But the researchers avoided the thorny question of species designation and simply referred to Neandertals, Denisovans, and modern humans as "populations." So were the participants in these prehistoric encounters members of separate species? Doesn't a species, by definition, breed only with others of that species?
Evolutionary biologist Jody Hey wrote that Biologists frequently disagree about species, and even argue over how best to define the word species. It is remarkable that evolutionists presented a theory of unobservable macroevolution (i.e. speciation) without ever providing a clear definition of a species. Scientists today still don't agree on how a species is scientifically defined. This is called the species problem. This is problematic because people may give their own interpretation of a species in order to support a certain view. Because the definition of a species is a grey area evolutionists are able to tweak the definition of a species in favor of their preconceived belief. Just like they deceivingly present evidence of microevolution as evidence for macroevolution. Another good example is the Neanderthal Man. Interbreeding of Neanderthals with humans producing offspring is very strong evidence for them simply being of the same species. Evolutionists always presented Neanderthals as some hairy brute ape-man supposedly being a precursor to modern humans. They did this of course to promote their monkey theory. It was either wishful thinking or deceit.