2bfound, Ok our definitions of macro-evolution/micro evolution are a little different here. What i meant by macro-evolution is that things evolve from single celled organisms to complex things like us (still via small mutational steps and not necessarily huge jumps). What i meant by micro-evolution is that evolution is confined within a 'kind'(whatever a kind is?). For example Bats can evolve, but only to a certain degree, they "still remain bats" as a creationist would put it. I'm not sure that these are the correct definitions of micro/macro evolution, but this is what i was thinking of.
BTW, i believe the definition of a species is: that which breeds within nature. Bats are not a species since not all bats breed with each other within nature. There are thousands of different kinds of bats, with as much difference between certain ones as there is between man and chimp. Some creationsts will tell you however that all bats are to be grouped into one 'kind'. But if they do that then they should also group man and chimp into one 'kind'. They of course wont do it for obvious reasons. They are being inconsistent with their reasoning. To me it doesn't make sense to group the huge array of different bats into one kind and not do it for chimp and man, simple as that. But also, to me it's obvious that all bats are related, to try and separate different bats into different kinds seems silly, and i dare say it would be impossible to do. It would be just too arbitrary and convenient. I maintain that Creationists can't clearly define a 'kind', its just too vague an idea and something nature resists.
Basically for me, Dawkin's said it. We have gone from Wolf to a whole host of different dogs in only a few thousand years. You have the dingo, poddle, you have all sorts of wild dogs, the british bulldog etc. The variety is huge now, and will only get larger as you allow more time. With more time allowed we could theoretically move so far away from the wolf, or even the poodle for that matter, that it wouldn't be funny. But creationists tell me that a 'dog' is still a 'dog'. To me, this is just playing with words. I just cant dismiss the theoretial implications of Artifical selection (selective breeding), that being that if we can go from Wolf to whatever --greyhound, poddle, all sorts of weird dogish creatures--, then you can go a hell of a lot further provided you allow more time, even to the point where this future theoretical creature starts looking more like a cat. After all, Cat and Dog arn't as dissimilar as you would think.
BTW "Darwin on Trial" has been on my want to read list for a while now since i first saw it over at commentarypress. And i have checked out your links, thanks.
