BTW, couch-potato, I liked your link up there - thanks! I got absorbed in it for about an hour; some fascinating stuff there. Especially the monumental amount of evidence, coming from many fields, from all different directions, that supports the 'common ancestor' theory. Whoever wrote that even included things that would *invalidate* evolutionary theory...if such things existed.

Most interesting, I thought, was the stuff about human tails, and how there was an example of a family who had tails, which was passed on through three generations. Obviously we did have an ancestor, evolutionarily-speaking, that had a tail. And even now, when we have evolved past the point of needing the tail, sometimes it still pops up, even for multiple generations.

Also interesting was the stuff about eyes, and how mammalian eyes with their blind spot are defective compared to the eyes that cephalapods evolved, which do not have the blind spot. There's no reason for us to have that defect, except that our evolutionary ancestors had that same blind spot and passed it on to us, whereas the cephalapods evolved along a different branch and did it a little bit better.

Very good and meticulously-researched article, that.
jamstigator Reviewed by jamstigator on . Macroevolution examples Supporters of Creationism believe that there are no example(s) of Macroevolution - put simply most supporters of creationism don't believe that living things have become more complex over time. This is a broad generalisation but it will fit most peoples understanding of the concepts. From Wikipedia: Some Creationists have also adopted the term "macroevolution" to describe the form of evolution that they reject. They may accept that evolutionary change is possible within species Rating: 5