<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DaneCook</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How could macro evolution not have been proven? Look at giraffes. Only the best adapted, are going to survive to a changing environment. Some environments might favor a tall animal so they can get leaves from a tall tree, others might favor a smaller quicker animal to hide from predators. If the 1st scenario is the case, your gonna have taller animals because only the tall ones will live to reproduce. if the other is the case then the smaller, quicker animals will reproduce, and there offspring will be similar to them. </div></div>

Not trying to be nasty but I don't see how that has anything at all to do with macro-evolution.

1. Mutation (micro-evolution) fully explains the above example.

2. Mutations tend to be negative in nature the vast majority of the time. Therefore as GC1 points out with his post it seems unlikely that a species could develop the unique qualities of a Giraffe which would require many, many, random mutations to obtain without the neg. mutations (which occur much more often that positive ones) from driving the species in extinction.

3. In this scenario (above) we should be overwhelmed with intermediary fossil examples. We are not.