Macroevolution, in theory, is "a naturally occurring, beneficial change that produces increasing and inheritable complexity." Such as if the offspring of one life form had a different and improved set of vital organs.

Microevolution , on the other hand, does not involve increasing complexity. It only involves minor chemical alterations or changes in size, shape, or color.

Microevolution is described as a horizontal change, while macroevolution (if it could be observed) would be a vertical change in complexity. With this in mind, notice that microevolution + time does not produce macroevolution.

If certain species of animals were evolving into higher life forms over time, one should most certainly see large numbers of"in between" species in the fossil record and in current life forms. No such examples exist and evolutionists have had to come up with excuses as to this lack of evidence.

It should be noted that creationists agree with evolutionists that microevolution does occur and is observable. But all too often evolutionists will give microevolution as evidence of macroevolution. We must be careful with this attempt to confuse the issue.

Natural selection does not result in new genes for new "parts". Natural selection only means some members of a population had a natural resistance to a lethal influence acting upon the population. The survivors then have less competition in the proliferation of the species and subsequent generations benefitted from this passed on characteristic.

This is microevolution, there is no special change in the organism, such as macroevolution suggests. These adaptations explain the survival of the fittest, but not their origin.

Though mutations produce new genetic material available for the evolution of a species, rarely is a mutation beneficial to the species. Most observable mutations are harmful, usually lethal.

No known mutation has ever produced a new species more highly developed in complexity than its ancestry.

Mutations bred into animals through cross-breeding species has always produced animals that are sterile (mules, etc.).

Experiments conducted over 90 years using 3000 consecutive generations of fruit flys in the attempt to mutate the species produced NO genetic improvements whatsoever.

"If evolution happened, one would expect to see gradual transitions among many living things. For example, variations of dogs might blend in with variations of cats.

Actually, some animals, such as the duckbilled platypus, have organs completely unrelated to their alleged evolutionary ancestors. The platypus has fur, is warm-blooded, and suckles its young like mammals. It lays leathery eggs, has a single ventral opening (for elimination, mating, and birth), and has claws and a shoulder girdle like most reptiles. The platypus can detect electrical currents (a.c. and d.c.) like some fish, and has a bill like a duck (a bird). It has webbed forefeet like an otter, a flat tail like a beaver, and the male can inject poisonous venom like a pit viper. Such "patchwork" animals and plants, called mosaics, have no logical place on the evolutionary tree."

"The duckbilled platypus is only found in Tasmania and eastern Australia. European scientists who first studied platypus specimens thought some clever taxidermist had stitched together parts of different animals. Its "patchwork" appearance is only seen by those who believe each animal must have close similarities with other animals. Actually, the platypus is perfectly designed for his environment."

Has language evolved in humans? Darwin thought so. If it did, then it follows that the earliest forms would be simple, and languages of today more complex.

The fact is, the more ancient the language, the more complex it is in syntax, tense, verb form, etc. (For example; Latin from 200 b.c., Greek from 800 b.c., to Sanskrit from 1500 b.c.).

The evidence supports the fact that language has devolved, not evolved - it has gotten simpler over time. Most lingusits even reject the idea that simple languages evolve into more complex ones.

"The existence of human organs whose function is unknown does not imply that they are vestiges of organs inherited from our evolutionary ancestors. As medical knowledge has increased, at least some functions of all organs have been discovered.

For example, the human appendix was once considered a useless remnant from our evolutionary past. Today it is known that the appendix plays a role in antibody production and protects part of the intestine from infections. Its removal also increases a person's susceptibility to leukemia, Hodgkin's disease, cancer of the colon, and cancer of the ovaries. Indeed, the absence of true vestigial organs implies that evolution never happened."

The fossil record all over the world shows evidences of rapid burial. There are many fossils, such as fossilized jellyfish, reveal details of their soft fleshy bodies. This clearly indicates a rapid burial, not a slow process of fossilization which would result in its decay.

Mass graves of varying species of animals in twisted and contorted positions also suggest violent and rapid burials over large areas.

"The worldwide fossil record is, therefore, evidence of the rapid death and burial of animal and plant life by a worldwide, catastrophic flood. The fossil record is not evidence of slow change."

Stories claiming that fossils of primitive, apelike men have been found are overstated: (copied verbatim)

• It is now universally acknowledged that Piltdown man was a hoax, and yet, it was in textbooks for more than forty years.

• Prior to 1978, the evidence for Ramapithecus consisted of a mere handful of teeth and jaw fragments. It is now known that these fragments were pieced together incorrectly by Louis Leakey and others in a form resembling part of the human jaw. Ramapithecus was just an ape.

• The only evidence for Nebraska man turned out to be a pig's tooth.

• Eugene Dubois conceded forty years after he discovered Java "man" that it was just a large gibbon. Dubois also admitted that he had withheld parts of four other thigh bones of apes, found in the same area, which supported that conclusion.

• The skulls of Peking man are considered by many experts to be the remains of apes that were systematically decapitated and exploited for food by true man.

• The classification Homo erectus is considered by most experts to be a category that should never have been created.

• The first confirmed limb bones of Homo habilis have recently been discovered. They show that this animal clearly had apelike proportions and should never have been classified as manlike (Homo).

• The Australopithecines, which were made famous by Louis and Mary Leakey, are quite distinct from humans. Several detailed computer studies of the Australopithecines have shown that their bodily proportions were not intermediate between man and living apes.

• Another study of their inner ear bones, that were used to maintain balance, showed a striking similarity with those of chimpanzees and gorillas, but great differences with those of humans.

• One Australopithecine fossil--a 3-foot-tall, long-armed, 60-pound adult called Lucy--was initially presented as evidence that all Australopithecines walked upright in a human manner. However, studies of Lucy's entire anatomy, not just a knee joint, now show that this is very unlikely. She probably swung from the trees and was similar to pigmy chimpanzees. The Australopithecines are probably an extinct ape.

• For about 100 years the world was led to believe that Neanderthal man was stooped and apelike. Recent studies show that this erroneous belief was based upon some Neanderthals who were crippled with bone diseases such as arthritis and rickets.

• Neanderthal man, Heidelberg man, and Cro-Magnon man were completely human. Artists' depictions of them, especially of their fleshy portions, are often quite imaginative and are not supported by the evidence.