This is demonstrably wrong. Not only is every individual and inbetween species (or the missing link as quacks would say) we have demonstrable foscilized evidence of all kinds of species at all kinds of rates of change based on available sampling of foscilized evidence. Your statement has at least three problems: 1) Imprecise terminology - you deliberately use micro and macro as if they are distinct concepts rather than relative bearings on a map. There is no micro vs macro. All instances of micro can be recategorized as macro by finding even smaller micro intances to infinity (or whatever the lowest limit to space time might be before it starts to become meaningless). All instances of macro can be recategorized as micro by finding even larger macro intances to infinity (or whatever the upper limit to space time might be before it starts to tear or become meaningless). 2) Imprecise framing - you deliberately frame the comparison as ONE DISTINCT SPECIES vs ANOTHER DISTINCT SPECIES. This is so utterly and totally wrong as to be absurd. First, every new generation of a species is a new instance of the species. Second, in order to frame the idea of comparing a species vs species fairly you must SIMULTANEOUSLY describe the species as a continuum of change over time (think of a gradient spread over time and space) and as an indvidualization of a single slice along the spectrum. In other words, species both exist and don't exist. It's a label. A label is just a conceptual tool we use to categorize information and you failing to explain to the poster the duality of species existing and not existing is a deliberate attempt at lying to the poster. 3) You obviously know enough about the subject to know the above two problems. Which brings us to the third problem: You deliberately did not elaborate on various concepts in evolution, which fair enough, are esoteric and mostly not interesting. I don't even care to know them, I'm only interested in universal computation anyway. However, what is interesting is that evolution exists within at least two filters: a) Steady predictable changes from one generation - all species have a consistent rate of change that can be measured. While we do not know why entropy exists, we do know that it does exist. Entropy means that while the universe has cause and effect and is computable, entropy seems to introduce just enough randomness into all natural systems that things like copying stuff will always end up with resolution errors during the copying process, and voila: evolutionary drift. HINT: If you actually want to challenge evolution, you might start by exploring how anything in the universe can copy it self when entropy exists. If you REALLY wanted to attack evolution, that is your best avenue. The other one might be the organization and depth (time span) of the evolutionary tree of humans. Kent Hovind is a fucking idiot in a suit. He spent all those years talking shit about evolution and never once clued into the problem of entropy. Anyway. b) Co-evolutionary environmental pressures (such as other species competing for the same resources as your species) - the archeological record has a very weird feature. All evolution trends in spurts and then seems to stop for very long periods of time. From what I have read, the thinking for why this is a little like thinking of two evenly matched teams on a field. The sports ball game will mostly be a veeeery sloooow slog a few yards at a time back and forth for most of the game with intermittent spurts where maybe a lucky punt or a dropped ball results in a linebacker getting that lucky opening or a running back picking up that loose ball and just deeking around the defense for a touchdown. You see this patterns all over the place, where two opposing systems will be in what seems a stalemate (there is no real stalemate, entropy guarantees small changes accumulating over time wich means the playing field is in incredibly tedious yet small change at all points in time) punctuated with breakthrough events forcing a sudden scrimmage and then it all settles down into another seeming equilibrium. You see this in war all the time if you read history. The current argument is that our pre-mamalian ancestors struggled to survive and remaind rodent like 100 million years ago because dinosaurs occupied all the top evolutionary niches because they were here first. The comet taking out the dinosaurs opened up all that evolutionary space for all kinds of species and it just turned out that this time the mammals won and here we are. If you read up on just enough arechological stuff, they use this line of reasoning to explain why pre dinosaur animals were at the top of the evolutionary food chain until something took them out and dinosaurs went from being smaller than chickens to dominating for so long that they ended up at the sizes of things like Argentinosaurus. -- SUMMARY -- If you meant it honestly, my apologies, it just reads like you know enough to know not to lie to the poster like that. The real problem here is that it is INCREDIBLY difficult to understand any specialty at a sufficient enough level of resolution EVEN IF YOU SPEND YOUR LIFE IN THE SPECIALTY. I cannot find the link, but there is a great video with ((( Brett and Heather Weinstein ))) explaining why it is pointless for anyone (even other scientists) to try and read white papers in any field because, not only do you need a lifetime of training to fully understand the language tools used to describe the things they are talking about properly, but that 50% or more of all white papers cannot replicated and it is suspected that the a HUGE PORTION of white papers are mostly made up bullshit by people that are ideologically possessed. So, while the topic of evolution is actually really hard and it spans quite a few disciplines, and there is room for your type of critique, please stop with the micro / macro bullshit. Those are garbage arguments only children buy. If you really want to make a great argument against evolution, tell the poster the fucking truth and start attacking things like entropy and other interesting positions. While I don't think you will get far even with those, at least you might be able to raise an eyebrow or two for effort.