Evolution

This is a narration I did a few weeks ago for Biology.....

Many people do not know the difference between microevolution and macroevolution. The contrast can not be over stressed. Microevolution is the theory that through natural selection an organism can develop, over time, into a more specialized species of that organism. Macroevolution is the theory that over eons of time, one organism can transform into a completely different kind of organism. 
Microevolution has many firmly based proofs. Darwin did prove that organisms adapt to their surroundings, and, if necessary, will change significantly over time. This shows God’s foresight, and great plan. He knew that the environment would change over time, therefore, He made it possible for organisms to adapt to changes. If a fish could not adapt to changes in the water, we would have no fish today. The water has changed significantly since Creation, and we still have fish.
Macroevolution, on the other hand, is based on the mere possibility of an organism evolving into a totally new one. There is not much evidence for it. If fact, there is more evidence against it, than in it’s favour. David Raup wrote in his Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin (50:25, 1970), “Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded…ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time.” (emphasis added). The Cambrian Explosion only adds to the confusion. According to the speculations of Lyell about geological column, all of the species from one time should be in each strata, or strip of rock. In the Cambrian rock, fossils from every major animal phylum can be found. This is very contrary to macroevolution, since not nearly enough time passed in order for all of those animals to “evolve”. With so much evidence against macroevolution, is it hard to comprehend that scientists actually believe this.