"Evolution is as much a fact as the heat of the sun," asserts professor Richard Dawkins, a prominent evolutionary scientist. Of course, experiments and directs observations prove that the sun is hot. But do experiments and direct observations provide the teaching of evolution with the same support?
Before answering that question, we need to clear up something. Many scientist have noted that over time, the decendants of living things may change slightly. For example, humans can selectively breed dogs so that eventually the decendants have shorter legs or longer hair than their forebears.* Some scientist attach such slight changes the term "MICROEVOLUTION".
However, evolutionist teach that small changes accumulated slowly over billon of years and produced the big changes needed to make fish into amphibians and apelike creatures into men. These proposed big changes are defined as "MACROEVOLUTION".
Charles Darwin, for example, taught that small changes we can observe implied that much bigger changes-which no one has observed-are also possible. He felt that over vast periods of time, some original, so-called simple life forms slowly evolved by means of "extremely slight modifications" - into the millions of different forms of life on earth.
To many, this claim sounds reasonable. They wonder, 'If small changes can occur within species, why should not evolution produce big changes over long period of time?'* In reality, though, the teaching of evolution rests on three myths. Which are:
MYTH 1. mutations provide the raw materials needed to create new species.
The teachings of macroevolution is built on the claim that mutuations random changes in the genetic code of plants and animals can produce not only new species but also entirely new families of plants and animals.
THE FACTS.
Many characteristics of a plant or an animal are determined by the instructions contained in its genetic code, the blueprints that are wrapped up in the nucleus of each cells. Researchers shows that cell's cytoplasm, its membrane and other structures also play a role in shaping an organism. Researchers have also discovered that mutations can produce alterations in the decendants of plants and animals. But do mutations really produce entirely new species? What has a century of study in the field of genetic research revealed? 
MYTH 2. Natural selection led to the creation of new species.
Darwin believed that what he called natural selection would favor those life-forms best suited to the environment, whereas less suitable life-forms would eventually die off. Modern evolutionists teach that as species spread and became isolated, natural selection chose the ones with genetic mutations that made them capable of surviving in their new environment. As a result, evolutionists speculate, these isolated groups eventually developed into totally new species.
THE FACTS.
As previously noted, the evidence from research strongly indicates that mutations cannot reproduce entirely new kinds of plants or animals. Nevertheless, what proof do evolutionist provide to support the claim that natural selection chooses beneficial mutations to produce new species? A brochure published in 1999 by National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in the united states refers to "the 13 species of finches studied by Darwin on Galápagos islands now known as Darwin's Finches" check it out. At best Darwin's finches show that species can adapt to changing climates.
MYTH 3. The fossil record documents macroevolutionary changes.
The previously mentioned NAS brochure leaves the reader with the impression that the fossils found by scientists more than adequately documents macroevolution. It declares: "so many intermediate forms have been discovered between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, and along primate lines of descent that it often is difficult to identify categorically when the transition occurs from one to another particular species."
THE FACTS.
The confident statement made by NAS brochure is quite surprising. Why? Niles Eldredge, a staunch evolutionist, states that fossils record shows, not that there is a gradual accumulation of change, but that for long period of time, "little or no evolutionary change accumulates in both species.
To date, scientists worldwide have unearthed and cataloged some 200 million large fossils. Many researchers agree that this vast and detailed record shows that all the major groups of animals appeared suddenly and remained virtually unchanged, with many species disappearing as suddenly as they arrived.
Even the few examples from the fossil record that researchers point to as proof of evolution are open to debate.
So how would you respond to the claim that proofs of so-called microevolution evidence that macroevolution must have taken place?
Why is it significant that fossil record shows that the majority of species changed very little over vast period of time?
please upvotes and i will really appreciate your comments.. Thanks.