Macroevolution vs microevolution - my pet peeve

Once again, the uneducated masses are trying to sound like they know what they are talking about. "I believe in microevolution but not macroevolution"

Well I have news for you, they are the same thing. Macro and micro only refers to the AMOUNT of evolution occurring. They are the same thing. All evolution is technically microevolution. You don't get a life form evolving from a microbe to a trout in one step.

Creationists like to cite proof of microevolution such as dog breeding. Well that's good, you've taken an important first step. We've been domesticating the wolf for around 10,000 years. We have created breeds as diverse as the poodle and the great dane, but they are still essentially the species. When the two types are bred, the offspring is viable.

Microevolution also resulted in horses and donkeys. However, the genetic drift due to microevolution has been great enough that even though they can breed, the offspring is not viable (it's sterile).

When enough microevolution happens over a long enough period of time, you get something called speciation. That's when the genes are no longer compatible and no breeding of any kind is possible.

Of course, those time periods aren't mentioned in the literal creationists story, so they can't be true (according to them). Rather than admit their story isn't backed up by evidence, they claim that contrary evidence is flawed.

For the ten years that I considered myself agnostic, I never once doubted evolution. My thought was that if any kind of omnipotent deity existed, then surely evolution was the process that it set into motion. It didn't occur to me to deny the fact of evolution.

It's like a six year old who plugs their ears with their fingers and sings so that they don't hear what they are being told.