here's the case for evolution. this thread is specifically in response to coup but hopefully others who doubt the theory will also read it. i will make several assumptions about the beliefs of evolution's naysayers, including coup, based on his posts and based on the posts of other creationists. if these assumptions are flawed or do not apply to you, then please say so. i have yet to meet a creationist who does not share in these beliefs, and so my argument will be in part structured with a built in response to these objections. the assumed beliefs are as follows: 1) microevolution is real, macroevolution is not 2) this is because each respective 'type' of life cannot become another type. variation within the type is possible, but the type retains its 'essence.' i.e. macroevoultion is not only unsupported, but is actually impossible. 3) macroevolution has never been observed in the fossil record let's begin. evolution by natural selection is essentially the grand unifying theory of biology. it works to make sense of the study taxonomists had struggled with for centuries. when a survey of life on earth (both living and extinct) is taken, a few conflicting facts present themselves: 1) the overwhelming diversity of life. life's diversity is a fact that is pretty much universally taken for granted, so i will assume that no explanation here is necessary. 2) the similarity among groups. despite the overall diversity, there's a varying degree of shared traits which is intuitively more prevalent among life forms that are deduced to be more closely related(i.e. mammals with other mammals, birds with other birds, etc). this traditionally means a similar morphological design (i.e. body plan) but it can also manifest in other types of similarities (behavior, development, etc.) these apparent shared traits are the foundation on which 'taxonomy' (the sorting of life into groups) is built. 3) the uniqueness of each individual. a species is defined by its similarity, yet no two members of a species are identical. this applies to every form of life no matter how primitive. the similarity by which the species is defined is a statistical abstraction. the species itself actually consists of numerous related mating populations, which in turn can become more or less similar from the parent species depending on the isolation of the population in question. related populations generally maintain genetic stability as a singular species through what is known as 'gene flow,' i.e. immigration and emigration between the related populations. it is this phenomenon that darwin observed himself in the various bird samples that he collected in the galapagos. evolution by natural selection makes sense of these 3 seemingly contradictory facts of life. it accounts for the diversity through the many evolutionary niches that present themselves in nature, and the similarities among groups are accounted for by common descent. in fact the groups of life as we generally understand them are defined by such descent, and thus the intuition that these life forms are 'related' is vindicated. the unique identity of each individual is accounted for by their genotype, which is a unique structure that was shaped by the recombination of the genes of it's parents, who's genes had similarly been shaped by their parents and so on and so on. this process plays a crucial role in natural selection, which is essentially the genetic turnover of each generation. i.e. the individuals which survive to reproduce shape the genetic makeup of the next generation, and thus statistically favorable traits are naturally selected. no other theory of life can make such neat sense of these 3 facts.