"macro-evolution is all about extrapolating back and deciding that these small changes could add up to evolving into humans and all the species we have today and calling it a theory/fact."

Why shouldn't we assume that the genetic changes that we see changing the appearance of species now accounts for the difference in how species appeared long ago? Yes, it is extrapolation, but it has a good foundation.

For the record, I don't think we know the exact mechanism of evolution. I don't think simple fluke mutations are responsible for the vast variation of species we see in the past and now. But it's just the mechanism that we aren't sure of. I think the basics of the theory are true, and there are some holes that need to be filled in. By no means should it be thrown away.

"As I said before, all you have to agree with is that something that has a beginning has a cause and you have that time has a cause. (supernatural by my definition)"

So? Cause does not equal God. Cause does not equal sentient being of some kind. Supernatural by your definition could mean something as natural as grass growing in another dimension. This point is moot. It doesn't affirm intelligent design.

"1. Do you know for certain that the above was a result of climate differences (as in, did we actually observe these deer grow bigger/smaller. Because, their genetic structures being almost the same doesn't prove that they evolved from each other)
2. Probably the biggest difference that we are required to see to decide if evolution is even possible is a change in bone structure."

1. They're just different races. Some animal species have races(aka, subspecies) just like humans do. It's similar to cat and dog breeds. Something small differs (skin/fur colour, or size in this example) between them, but they're so similar otherwise that they're classified as the same species. We didn't view this happening though, no.

http://www.enature.com/fieldguide/sh...?recnum=MA0487

This is not meant to be evidence, but it explains well how it could've happened: http://jrscience.wcp.muohio.edu/fiel....TheEven-.html

Since there was less resources, only smaller deer would be able to be properly nourished. The larger ones would continue to die until only the smaller gene remained.

2. I'm not sure what you mean by that. Clarify?

"Evolutionists used to use this trick or the infinite matter trick to eliminate probability."

Ah, I see what you mean. Unfortunately we don't have infinite time or matter. That's a silly arguement for evolution if you ask me.

"No, but as I was talking about with Doomgaze before, it seems to imply at least an extra dimension."

"Dimension", thanks for sci-fi, implies it exists in another universe, but remember that up, down, time, etc are all dimensions and very much a part of this universe.

For extra reading, since you seem interested: http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/13/11/9/1

"(you could argue that a collision of two membranes in this higher dimension could be enough to cause our universe)"

That's another theory called the big fire or flash or something like that. I'm still kicking myself for leaving my books at home. I'll update this stuff in about a week.

"The only way to argue whether it was intelligent or not is based on what we can see around us, but there is no way to argue in certain terms. All I can argue for is how likely it is that intelligent design occured."

Yeah, it's kinda futile, since proving other theories unlikely doesn't make yours any more likely. If you prove that evolution can't happen, and I prove that intelligent design can't happen, does that make my theory of a giant chicken laying an egg from which life began from more likely? No. It means we don't know.

"The site that you linked talked about hybridization, which seems to fail almost every time. (the resulting "species" is almost always sterile)"

From site:
5.2 Speciations in Plant Species not Involving Hybridization or Polyploidy
5.2.3 Speciation as a Result of Selection for Tolerance to a Toxin: Yellow Monkey Flower (Mimulus guttatus)
5.3.4 Sexual Isolation as a Byproduct of Adaptation to Environmental Conditions in Drosophila melanogaster
5.3.5 Sympatric Speciation in Drosophila melanogaster
5.5 Speciation Through Host Race Differentiation
5.8 Speciation Through Cytoplasmic Incompatability Resulting from the Presence of a Parasite or Symbiont

I'm disappointed, you know. Did you even read the site? That's only SOME of the stuff on there. There's more if you click the "other link" one too. Yeah, there's a lot there, but you could've at least scrolled through the titles.

And besides, those hybrids are most certainly species. They can't call it that unless it IS fertile, and in this case, also that it doesn't breed with the original species, they even state this in the article many times. What more can you ask for? A species is defined as a group of organisms that interbreed and share a gene pool. They MUST be able to interbreed. That's why mules aren't actually a species, as they're a sterile hybrid of donkeys and horses.

"2. It doesn't help us to produce people. (as far as I know, people are not hybrid's of any two races.)"

There's some evidence that humans were produced by two hominid tribes meeting and breeding. The two races met and went extinct in about the same area where early humans are found.

This is an interesting read, even if you don't believe in evolution: http://www.riverapes.com/Me/Work/Hum...tionTheory.htm

"It says that some multiple celled organisms were found in the lowest layer, I am pretty sure that you already know this. I think the bigger dilemma for evolution to do with this topic is how in 10 million years (a small time in evolutionary terms) so many beings "evolved" skeletons, when they had not done so before."

he'd have to define what "lowest layer" means. Either way, it'd be impossible to say for sure if unicellular organisms definitely came first and when, because so much of the sedimentary rock will have been long destroyed by natural processes by now. The sea floor, and Earth's surface is under constant change.

Stromalites (http://www.wmnh.com/wmel0000.htm) are the earliest unicellular fossils, and predate the earliest multicellular fossils by over a billion years. This could be because of lack of fossilization, because as I said, soft things don't fossilize well, but I doubt this accounts for a billion year's difference. no such gap appears elsewhere in the record. also, why would some unis fossilize, and no multis? It doesn't make sense. i saw nothing to support what that man suggests (and I've done a hell of a lot of research today).

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Evolu...-97Miller.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html

They didn't evolve skeletons, they developed hard parts. I would say it was a simple fluke mutation. curly hair is a fluke mutation, and a dominant one at that. It's very well documented in pets, there's now curly cats, dogs, even rabits and guinea pigs. In such primitive species, dominant traits that are successful (teeth, lets say, hardened flagella, or a shell, a hard cell wall) spread like wildfire. They reproduce rapidly, and very successfully. Change happens much quicker. That's why a lot of genetic research involves unicellular/simple multicellular creatures.

"From your link on the Cambrian explosion."

That doesn't mean all of the species listed evolved, just a large amount. 10 million is not a short time for simple life forms like that.

"1. Would you link something about this.
2. The problem with this, (even if proven) is that it is as much in support of intelligent design as it is of evolution. (Well, the biblical one anyways, the 7 "days" of creation. (there is quite a bit of support (using the Bible itself) for why these could not be literal days (relative to our days anyways)) God didn't create everything at once) What evolutionists have to show to get support for their theory is that the multi-celled life was derived from single-celled organisms. (or to be able to show any other form of macro-evolution occured. By even one occurence of macro-evolution would not be close proving that everything evolved from a single-celled organism.)"

Of course I can't show an example of a single-celled organism turning into a multi-cellular one. But it's likely the transition from unicellular to multicellular started from colonial organisms that began functioning as a whole. You can see things kind of like that today. Many fungi, and some algae (the green slime you see in ponds/fish tanks) form colonies like this. I watched a video in biology where a type of algae/fungi actually grew as a whole, shaped organism, forming a flower-like part, but was actually just a colony of unicellular organisms. Unfortunately, I can't remember what it was called, and I can't find info on the net, so yeah.

Multicellular organisms are in a way only a colony of unicellular organisms. Unicellular organisms multiply all the time. in such a multiplication, perhaps the two cells became bound in their own membrane, and in doing so, became twice as strong and thus successful.

The algae Acetabularia acetabulum (aka, mermaid's wine glass) is unicellular, but has a distinct flower shape, and can grow up to 20 cm. I think it's interesting that it can resemble multicellular organisms so much, but still be only one cell.

"Given the situation, 40 million years is relatively a very short time for so many beings to "evolve" skeletons. (or ones which do not easily fall apart)"

Fall apart? you say that as if you were throwing together a box of lego, and hoping for a house to be built. It's a gradual process. Think of cytoskeleton (thin bits of hardened membrane) becomming larger, slowly changing shape over generations. Such bent-in membrane structures acting a skeleton of sorts is very common, all of our organs have structures called trabeculae, which are inward protrusions of the protective capsule that surrounds them.

I really don't think evolutionist sites are nearly as grossly inaccurate as some creationist sites, but obviously I'm biased. I try to use information from people who aren't proving either side, like scientists who just did a study on populations, or genetics.