So, how exactly does 'micro evolution' (aka: natural selection) not lead to macro evolution?

Every genetic code has its own limitations/boundaries. What some call micro-evolution is simply variations within the set parameters of an existing genetic code. What is called macro-evolution involves the transcending or "jumping" of those preset parameters.

Here's an example: Darwin's Galapagos finches have been observed to develop differently sized beaks over time. Observation is an integral part of science. However, the genetic information for beak sizes was already integrated into their DNA. What we have not observed is the evolution of those finches into something other than finches. That's the difference.

Here's another example: Suppose I can walk ten steps. Why can't I walk ten miles the same way? Well, maybe I can, but maybe there is an obstacle such as a fence, wall, or body of water in my way. I can still walk those ten miles, but I have to walk within the parameters of my yard.

Now, what sort of animal have we ever observed evolving into another animal? What cat has ever become something other than a cat? What dog has ever become something other than a dog? None, to my knowledge, else it would be on the cover of National Geographic or Time with the headline "Scientists Finally Find Missing Link!" Any such change is speculative and not observed. And observation is an integral part of science.

Contrary to the accepted wisdom of Darwin’s day, the Bible nowhere teaches that species are fixed and unchanging (in fact, it does not even use the word species). Rather, the book of Genesis refers to “kinds” (Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, etc.) and suggests that living things have had a very dynamic history. For example, as a consequence of the Fall, some animals became predators, and disease entered into the world. And after the Flood destroyed life on earth, God commanded the creatures on the Ark to “breed abundantly in the earth, and be fruitful, and multiply upon the earth” (Genesis 8:17, KJV).

The processes of natural selection, gene flow & genetic drift all work AGAINST the overwhelmingly debilitating (or simply neutral) effects of genetic mutations. There are plenty of cases of speciation being observed, but never due to the creation of new, additional, functional genetic material.

"Kinds" unable to reproduce other "kinds" keeps the "fact" of evolution where it belongs... on the shelf. this is not evolution, but adaptation. You will never see a monkey becoming a man..... well, except for drawings in books about evolution.

Nac says: "Ask them what logical or biological barriers prevent microevolution from becoming marcroevolution, and see what they say"

Micro evolution takes place within species-classes ONLY, while macro takes place only within the pages of millions of evo papers that propose bio-changes that require new DNA being added to one species-class that causes it to evolve into a new species-class. The first is fact, the second is unproven conjecture.

good question. always fun to watch the creationista squirm and wriggle and lie their pants off to explain how evolution didn't happen... except "micro"evolution did, and god saved "kinds" in the flood, and they ... um... "changed" into other "kinds" later...

*crickets*

FYI "micro" evolution (not a scientific term) is NOT natural selection. Selection is the process where certain individuals have greater reproductive success. Evolution is change in alleles. Selection (there are three main catagories) is the driver of evolution.

Why does 0-60 in 10 seconds not mean 0-600 in 100 seconds?

Behe did a great explanation using an example of a bike turning into a motor cycle in Darwin's Black Box. Don't thumbs me down for saying "Behe" if you haven't freaking read it.

No such thing as macro evolution or micro evolution.

It's all evolution.

Why the phuck are you putting prefixes on something that doesnt need ANY prefixes?

Next thing you know these pseudoscientists will be having suffixes.

"Oh it is definately pre-evolution-ation"

There is no such thing as macro evolution or microevolution. There is only evolution as compared to fractal theory and mandlebrot. Smaller systems repeat iteration from microcosmic to macrocosmic in congruency. Sometimes there is a mean deviation and resultant evolution from that deviation.

'Micro-evolution' logically leads to 'macro-evolution' the same way that micro-aging, meaning babies growing a day older every day, leads to macro-aging, meaning babies turning into pensioners.

Because Jaysus won't let it!

But seriously, YECs believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old, so there's not enough time, or it's impossible for changes to accumulate, or some **** like that.

Only idiots will use this artificial distinction to try to disprove macroevolution. It's a matter of degree.

Ask them what logical or biological barriers prevent microevolution from becoming marcroevolution, and see what they say.