OK OUG, I’m going to do one more post and will leave you to it.
There are others who can explain better than I can. I am not a scientist, unfortunately.

So your main concern is macroevolution- you don’t deny microevolution.

Firstly, you need to understand that microevolution over a very long period of time can lead to macroevolution.
Macroevolution does not mean that there must be a big change in appearance. There are small and gradual appearances- like multiple ‘micro evolutions’.
Do some research on this very topic if you want to understand it better.
Scientists don’t even concern themselves with making the distinction between micro and macroevolution, as they see no barrier between the two. Macroevolution is more a creationist invention that they used to make it more plausible that all the ‘ kinds’ of animals fitted on Noah’s Ark.

Macroevolution is evolution just above the species level, so macroevolution includes speciation. There really are no limitations of mutations in DNA.
It’s like walking a mile taking small steps, not by taking one giant leap, but there is no limitation to how far you can walk, given enough time.

We see sister species evolve- for example two species from the same genus. E.g. you mentioned Darwin’s finches. These had evolved as different species within the same genus.
Aside from some changes (colour and beaks) they still look fairly similar.
It takes many millions of years and many, many speciation events before enough variation has occurred that accumulate to large changes from the original species.
The only difference is time- if you have a lot of time you can have more small changes than when you have little time.

Finally, I would like to refer you to anything on evolution by Ken Miller; perhaps you find it easier to listen to him than to Richard Dawkins.
He was one of the scientists debating the creationists in that Judgment Day court case I talked about earlier. Here’s a short video that I find interesting.
Ken Miller on Whale Evolution and Intelligent Design.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9a-lFn4hqY

we will have to agree to disagree,i know god creation seems the lazy way of explaining it,but just life simply living[is this of itself not amasing]

we have this amasing'thing'called life[in fact thousands of types of life[if not closer to millions]of all these millions each cell division has a mutation rate[the average life form has at least v7'micro evolutions]

[one in two hundred cell-divisions has a malfunction[but this is no great big problem cause we got two chromosonal-strands[one from each paRENTAL]so phenotypical expression of the mutation isnt apparent

see that even with this massive[micro]mutation rate these micro evolutions are in affect of no affect[except in rare cases[thus we have a mortality rate for embryo's]

but geting back to the millions of living things[is it not strange we dont have one macro-evolution happening[in all the time science[and pre-science has been observing this wonderous interaction]

intelligent men have been arround for thousands of years[a sheep evolving into a goat WOULD have been noted[yet no trans-genus is recorded in all mans written history]

if inter/genus conversion[macromutation][evolution]were a valid concept with all the millions of'evolutions'living right now[any dog breeding a cat]would have been noted[but none egsists[in the past or the present]there are NO[living]intermediates between genus to be found[thus logic says i see no proof.

now we can report[speculate about it forever,but till it is recorded it must remain a theory]you know i been looking for a mere 30 years[but there are thousands spent their whole_lives looking[and by the numbers alone;not a single verification;THIS speaks for itself]

thanks for trying to explain the impossable[but even science has failed[they are just very good at passing-it-on to the next person[were they sure they would make available all the evidence[and allow it to be judged[their secrecy with the info]proves to me it has flaws[thus they prefer no-one reads it[unless they allready swallowed the lie]

i asked for proof[there isnt any]yes there is lots of facts that may allow it to be logically infured[but there is no factual/observances repoorted]thus there isnt an evolutional/science based on verified FACT.

all the best celivia

UOG

This will be my final post here as well.

You say things like 'dogs evolving into cats'; in a way this has already happened: the mammalian ancestor (the Therapsid - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapsida ) that led to dogs, bears, marmots, cats and other similar creatures changed and adapted to cope with the changing environment. For example dogs hunt in packs and generally bring down larger prey whereas cats mostly (except for lions) hunt alone. They each have a part to play in the eco-system.

You also admitted: " ,i know god creation seems the lazy way of explaining it "

It is any easy way to look at the formation of live - evolution is long and complicated. I thought that maybe you would appreciate looking at a picture of the evolutionary tree - which shows life evolving from the most simple into more complex creatures - each one fitting into the eco-system that existed at that period of time.

http://www.dhushara.com/book/evol/trevol.jpg - please just click on the image to enlarge for easy viewing.

fractile from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synapsida

[edit] Taxonomy

[edit] Classification
Series Amniota
CLASS SYNAPSIDA *
Order Pelycosauria *
Suborder Caseasauria
Suborder Eupelycosauria *
Family Varanopseidae
Family Ophiacodontidae
Family Edaphosauridae
Family Sphenacodontidae *
Order Therapsida *
Suborder Biarmosuchia *
Suborder Dinocephalia
Suborder Anomodontia
Suborder Gorgonopsia
Suborder Therocephalia
Suborder Cynodontia *
Family Probainognathidae
Superfamily Chiniquodontoidea *
CLASS MAMMALIA >>>

thus we are talking about COLD BLOODED lisards?

>>Synapsids('fused arch'),also known as theropsids('beast face'),..
...Synapsids were originally defined at the turn of the 20th century, as one of the four main subclasses of reptiles,on the basis of their distinctive temporal openings....

PLEASE NOTE
google search hasa stopped working at this stage
[darn this real time monitoring]

i was going to proove the absurdities out

like lower at the abouve link it states [words to the affect of how this beastie ['evolves' into a mammel[the quote was going to reveal how the traits there after DONT MAKE MENTION of becoming [evolving into warmblood m,ammel [from a cold blood LIZARD[THAT IS A KEY MUTATION[IS IT NOT?]

also there is no mention of a shoulder blade EVOLVING that allows the ''l;egs to draw under to allow faster breathing [lol]
its all an absurdity [but goog;e wont google wiki pedia to reveal it FROM THEIR OWN QUOTES

why arnt we confirming these KEY CAPS[what was that cold blooded that becsame warm blood?
what EVOLVED the shoulder Blade

the order [is this the genus or the breed equivelent

how many know what those latin names mean[i have included two names
very scientific
looks like but spoken in greek means your smart ,its just like docters learn to nsame what they are seeing then using its description [in latin] to search for the cure for the symptom[skip the greek names [lets call a spede a aspade

see
spades BREED ONLY SPADES
once the species[and thus its genus DIES its extinct
no ammount of natural [or un natural random selection] will return it

believing it all can reveals the absurdity this theoryu is based on

It is to say the least illuminating that OUG demands verifiable evidence re evolution. And vehemently rejects evolution because a few of the pieces don’t quite fit. But then proceeds to swallow Intelligent Design holus bolus, though none of the pieces fit !

And it is illuminating to closely examine some of OUG’s arguments…

For example OUG says : “[one in two hundred cell-divisions has a malfunction[but this is no great big problem cause we got two chromosonal-strands[one from each paRENTAL]so phenotypical expression of the mutation isnt apparent.
see that even with this massive[micro]mutation rate these micro evolutions are in affect of no affect[except in rare cases[thus we have a mortality rate for embryo's]”

[Note how easily he dismisses genetic defects !]

Unfortunately the truth is a little more tragic .There are numerous genetic diseases/defects .
Many individuals have their lives tormented or prematurely terminated by such defects.
The hyper link below talks of 6% of children –hardly rare! And that doesn’t take into account diseases that show up later in life.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/30/AR2006013001587_pf.html

So what are to glean from this attempt at window dressing on OUG parts?
a) He has little knowledge of genetics.
b) He knows such defects reflect badly on intelligent design and is seeking to gloss over it–and hopes no one notices.
c) He’s a little shell shocked from all the buffeting he’s been getting.
d) All of the above

horus google mercury mutation,many of your fact's have been altered as we trust science too_far.

http://altmedangel.com/vaccine.htm
>>healthy mercury?

When it comes to other sources of mercury,they are extremely vigilant..mercury is particularly harmful to nerve cells,government health authorities have stressed that infants and small children shouldn't be fed these foods,and pregnant and nursing mothers should avoid eating tuna also...

..the EPA Environmental-Protection-Agency)has determined that the maximum allowable daily exposure to mercury is 0.1 microgram per kilogram of body weight,the new flu vaccine for babies,called Fluzone,contains 25 micrograms of mercury per-0.5ml dose.

Practically all vaccines contain mercury and aluminum.And vaccines are not"safer"sources of these toxic minerals.It doesn't matter if the mercury comes from fish or from a vaccine.The potential for neurological damage remains the same.

But for some reason,even though we're warned about fish consumption, vaccines and flu shots are strongly encouraged and,in many instances,even required by law.

more babies seem to be developing autism problems,and the risk of developing Alzheimer's disease is steadily increasing.[lol]

Alzheimer's linked to flu shots

In the year 2000,there were approximately 5million people in the U.S. with Alzheimer's,and it has become the fourth_leading cause of death in individuals over the age of 75.By the year 2010,it is estimated that over 7 million individuals will have the disease,and by 2025,22 million will develop Alzheimer's.As the general population continues to consume more contaminated food,water,and medicines,

One expert stated that anyone who had five consecutive flu-'vaccine' shots increased their risk of developing Alzheimer's disease by a factor of 10 over someone who received only two or fewer shots<<

but science is decieving us on so many more levels[it is easy to go along with the crowd[just because creationism is hard to concieve dosnt mean evolution is PROVEN]

[if SCIENCE prove IT[dont create distractions based on weight of numbers who believe[but have never tested the science][science hasnt replicated that god alone can do[yet fools accept it as fact]

both are theory[chosing one over the other dont prove YOUR right

live with it[or prove one is REAL science]
EVILloonitune fail its own faulsifiables