First thing to note is that evolutionists from the world of mainstream science present their theory as a fact to the world via their mainstream media like for example biased Wikipedia. But it should be obvious to anybody with a basic understanding of science that many of the statements are unprovable by science simply because they supposedly happened billions of years ago and are completely unobservable and irrepeatable. All those bold statements are based on certain assumptions which in case of evolution theory are derived from the philosophy naturalism. Evolution is the belief that a life form appeared on the earth and that that unique first life form changed into all other unique life forms known to us today. All this supposedly happened merely by means of mindless naturalistic processes without any purpose in mind. Like in fairy tales or science fiction. Supposedly this fine-tuned universe popped into existence from nothingness by mindless naturalistic processes and then dead matter turned into living beings to become mindful and intelligent human life with the ability to ponder all these things. In order to seemingly support that fantastic story evolutionists say it supposedly happened in incredible amounts of time which they base on their self-invented philosophy called uniformitarianism. But what kind of evidence is there for that fantastic belief system? There are two kinds of biological evolution, one real and one imaginary. It is essential to understand the fundamental differences between microevolution and macroevolution because evolutionists themselves tend to ignore and omit them for obvious reasons.

Microevolution encompasses observable changes within a species which causes variety within that species. It is limited by the existing genetic makeup of that species. Dogs descended from their ancestor the wolf. Wolves and dogs have the same features. No dog has ever evolved wings or any other feature not already present in the original genetic makeup of the wolf. Wolves never evolved into superwolves but they degenerated into inferior dogs largely as the result of artificial selection. A copy can never be better than its original. Microevolution shows that new specified information is not added to the existing genetic makeup of an original ancestor naturally. Therefore one kind does not change into another but rather changes into many variations of itself within the limits of the original genetic makeup of its ancestor. The driving forces of microevolution are mutations and selection.

Macroevolution is the belief that one unique species turned into another and that it happened by means of mindless naturalistic processes only. Macroevolution requires the creation and addition of new specified information to the genetic makeup. This is necessary for the acquisition of new functional features which were not already present in the lifeform. The first major problem with macroevolution is that nobody ever observed it. Nobody ever saw a dog evolve into anything but a dog. Or a fruit fly into anything but a fruit fly. Etcetera. Therefore it can not even be called science. It is based on the philosophy naturalism as was adhered to by for example Charles Darwin and other powerful naturalists who gained in popularity in an ever more materialistic world. Because there are no examples of macroevolution in observable reality, much of Darwin's theory was built on speculation about the fossil record. But the fossil record and the Cambrian explosion show a much different picture of the history of life. Because there exists no scientific evidence for their unscientific belief evolutionists say that microevolution plus incredible amounts of time leads to macroevolution. This is called neo-Darwinism. But in reality incredible amounts of time only make their theory more unscientific. Also because it is based on the unprovable philosophy uniformitarianism.

It is remarkable that evolutionists presented a theory of unobservable macroevolution (i.e. speciation) without ever providing a clear definition of a species. Scientists today still don't agree on how a species is scientifically defined. This is called the species problem. This is problematic because people may give their own interpretation of a species in order to support a certain view. Because the definition of a species is a gray area evolutionists are able to tweak the definition of a species in favor of their preconceived belief. Just like they deceivingly present evidence of microevolution as evidence for macroevolution. Another good example is the Neanderthal Man. Interbreeding of Neanderthals with humans producing offspring is very strong evidence for them simply being of the same species. Evolutionists always presented Neanderthals as some hairy brute ape-man supposedly being a precursor to modern humans. They did this of course led by their preconceived belief and in order to promote their monkey theory in this world. It was wishful thinking, and perhaps worse, namely deceit. Macroevolution is based on metaphysics, not on science.