Alright, I have some time to reply now. Just for the sake of clarity, I'd like to point out that Gravity is still classified as a theory. You still seem to be unclear on the definition of a scientific theory. Pnt said it better than I could, including the portion about evolution itself being a provable fact while the idea of evolution being responsible for the progression of life up until now is the "theory" part.
Right off the bat this site improperly defines evolution. The Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with how life began, how the universe came into being, etc. This site claims that evolutionists are referring to all of these things which is not the case. Someone who claims evolution has to do with cosmology doesn't understand what evolution is.
It is also unclear on the acutal definitions of "macro" and "micro" evolution which, by the way, are deceptive to begin with. They're used in debate to clarify things, but any evolutionist will tell you that these terms aren't really good terms to describe evolution, as they are essentially the same thing. Just one is the other on a grander scale. Seperating them into two different terms provides the misconception that they are two different things, or two different types of evolution.
Here is the definition this site provides for macroevolution:
Quote:
The postulate that says all life formed from earlier organized non-life and through some form of mutation, natural selection, and enormous amounts of time.
That is not the definition of macroevolution. Not according to any science text, professor, dictionary, or encyclopedia I have ever read. Macro evolution is simply the term used to refer to evolution above the species level (i.e. dinosaur species to transitional species to bird species), whereas microevolution refers to evolution within a single species (i.e. wolf to domestic dog).
But I stress these are not two seperate processes as this site and you seem to be claiming. There is only one kind of evolution. Microevolution is to macroevolution as centimeters are to meters. Evolution does not work in terms of "Here's a dinosaur population. Poof! The dinosaur population turned into a bird population!" It works as "Here's a dinosaur. The dinosaur population slowly changes over generations due to natural selection. Eventually the "dinosaur" population looks different and would not even be able to produce viable offspring with earlier generations. Since it can no longer reproduce with this species, we need to classify it as a new species."
"Microevolution" is the incremented evolution that makes up the grand scale of "macroevolution." We're probably better off just not using these terms at all because they cause more confusion than anything else.
Quote:
As Evolutionists have never observed any of the first four supposed evolutions they assume are true, they only talk about the last microevolution and try to define it as all five!
Referring to the four things this site claims make up the theory of evolution. I'm not going to talk about the first three since they are not part of the theory of evolution. I've already been over the mistaken definitions of/distinctions between the last two, but to use the actual definition of "macroevolution" (being the evolution of one species into another), they are wrong. Speciation (the more scientifically accepted term for macroevolution) has been observed. I already said this once but you seemed to ignore that statement so this time I will provide a link as well: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Quote:
The Evolutionist sees microevolution as the cornerstone of evolutionary theory. They believe that it is billions of microevolution mutations in the genome, creating new alleles, and natural selection preserving those changes that is the process of evolution.
Well, this site is correct (although mutations are not solely responsible for genetic changes, just one of the factors involved). That is the definition of evolution, as is supported by the dictionary and encyclopedia links I provided. I will point out that I did not look up the definition of "microevolution." I looked up the definition of evolution. The definitions of evolution that I provided are the ones accepted (and originally proposed) by the scientific community.
Quote:
Microevolution changes mainly occur through the practice of selective breeding. There are no ?mutations? in selective breeding or in genome adaptation to the environment. The complex changes that occur are already in the genome and are merely being brought out from human or environmental pressure.
If they are claiming that microevolution occurs mostly due to artificial human influence (I assume so since they use the term "selective breeding") then they are very wrong. Although the last sentence suggests to me that they're simply using the wrong term since they seem to acknowlege the fact that microevolution occurs due to environmental pressures. I'm guessing the term they meant to use was "natural selection." Not really making themselves look very reputable by not even using the correct terminology. I also hope they're not trying to claim mutations simply do not happen, as this is quite obviously false.
Quote:
This has since been proven to have 'staged' photographs of the moths 'glued' to tree trunks - so much for evolutionists objectivity
Referring to the peppered moth example. Way to not do their background research! I'm well-aware of what they're trying to refer to. Yes, the photographs were staged for the purposes of getting a good photograph (anyone who has tried to photograph a moth or a butterfly in their own backyard knows it is extremely difficult because they won't sit still). The studies conducted were not done based on the photographs. They were done based on observation. The observations of natural occurences in nature support the claims made about the peppered moth population. Photos taken under artificial conditions for press purposes do not invalidate the actual observations. Ex: My dog likes to sleep on pillows. If I am writing an article about this, and he is not sleeping on a pillow at the particular time I wish to take a photograph, and I actively put him on a pillow for the purposes of the photograph, does this invalidate all of my claims? Obviously not. Anyone can spend an extended amount of time around him and see that he'll go sleep on the pillows on his own.
Quote:
In fact evolutionists are experimenting with microevolution experiments to see if mutations, a cornerstone in their postulate, will really cause enough positive changes to move one species to another. Since 1910 there have been accelerated mutation experiments with the fruit fly. To date no success.
That's funny, seeing as the link I provided with a list of observed speciation events includes the first observed speciation event of the fruit fly and dates it between 1958-1963.
Quote:
Since about 1950 there have been accelerated mutation experiments with bacteria and again not much success.
Not "much" sucess? Well, I guess at least they're trying to cover their bases here, since if they had said "no sucess" they'd be quite mistakn again.
"12% (3 out of 26) random mutations in a strain of bacteria improved fitness in a particular environment." Just one of the many instances of beneficial mutations observed in bacteria, from this site: http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html
By the way, I just got to the part where they cite a comment on TalkOrigins (since you seemed to indicate there was something in this article that destroyed TalkOrigins' reputability). That was from a debate on the TalkOrigins newsgroup. Not from one of their articles which are written based on scientific sources (journals, articles, texts, etc.) So, don't try to use something some kid shouted angrily in a debate to discredit an entire webpage of source material.
The section on genetics makes a lot of incorrect statements about genetics and evolution (such as: "mutations almost always involve a loss of information"). It looks like they don't really understand what they are talking about.