Over and over again the claim is made and the challenge presented regarding how microevolution leads to macroevolution. Let's look at what is being talked about, and then let's look at why one cannot lead to the other. What is referred to as 'macroevolution' is the type of evolution people argue about. The claim is made that, given enough time, enough fortuitous mutations, the right kind of natural selection, and a favorable environment, some kind of single-celled ancestor or ancestors gave rise to the multitude of life forms we see around us today. This is the type of evolution that claims that some reptiles evolved into birds, that man and ape had a common ancestor, and that we all came from fish even farther back. Microevolution, on the other hand, is simply another word for variation. Variation produced our different breeds of dogs and cats and horses. We work constantly with variation in breeding and experience it constantly in our own families. Variation has to do with eye color, skin color, hair/fur color, markings, size -- that sort of thing. The claim is made by those supporting evolution that by allowing variations to pile up on one another slowly, through time, a lizard can become an ape, or a bacteria became a bear. To illustrate as simply as possible why this cannot happen, think of variations in any population as being a swing. There is a back-and-forth idea to variation. For instance, with size: there will be a minimum size for a type of animal and a maximum size. And all in between might be seen. But the size variation is hooked firmly to the swingset -- the genetics. Coloring is the same -- some extremes and all sorts of combinations in between. But size stays size and color stays color. Evolution, on the other hand, wants that swing to become disconnected from the swingset and act like a rocket -- taking off for parts unknown. Can't happen. First of all, variations have maximums and minimums. Secondly, they do not build on one another to produce something 'new.' Thirdly, when a cell splits, or buds (producing a new cell), there is a complicated checking mechanism which goes on where the chromosomes are concerned. Most mistakes (read 'mutations') simply can't get through. Of those that do, most do not appear to be expressed in the organism -- that means we don't see what effect they have. Of those which are expressed, it's about a thousand to one in favor of the mutation being damaging or lethal to the organism. So get that beneficial mutation. One time. Then, for another one to show up, there are about a thousand negative mutations that have to be dealt with first. That rocket can't take off. Meanwhile the swing is still swinging -- back AND forth. No direction -- just back and forth, showing variations around a mean -- the chain on the swing is just so long. And that's why variation, or 'microevolution' cannot be equated with or lead to basic body changes, or 'macroevolution.' Variations work independently of each other; they only go so far; and all the changes of color or size or hair or fur type simply are not going to cause a cold-blooded animal to change its entire metabolism to warm-blooded. They are not going to produce extra chambers for a heart, turn a lizard's breast bone upside down (for becoming a bird), produce new bone structure, cause joints to form -- the list is incredibly long. But evolution says the rocket not only took off from the swingset, but that all these things happened SIMULTANEOUSLY! God, on the other hand, states in Genesis 1 that He created life by type or kind. That just makes a whole lot more sense given what we have learned about genetics in the past hundred years! Swings don't become rockets.