When you say macro-evolution, what do you mean?
Don't bash me too hard for this question, guys, haha. I am an athiest, and I do believe that evolution is the only credible explanation for life as we know it. My question lies in a lot of responses that talk about how there is lots of evidence for 'macro-evolution'. It was MY understanding that Macro-Evolution is simply a misconception. It is the result of many minute changes that over time. For example a fossil record of the human skull can differentiate between two skulls in very noticable ways over a million years, but without fossil records in between we simply fail to see the small changes in between skull A and skull B. I was under the belief that macro-evolution(in a benificiary way to survival, such as an elephant without a trunk, suddenly next generation BOOM, trunk!) was so mathematically improbable that it couldn't feasibly be used to explain evolution and that only by small, progressive steps could evolution truly work. So if you could enlighten me upon Macro-Evolution, or point out something I've missed, I'd appreciate it!