Not at all.
zin, some others, and myself all explained how it's all a bunch of different evidences put together that shows macroevolution. (belabors the point, but you can find 29+ at the talk origins site, or lookup jerry coyne on amazon for his latest book on the topic)
There was my earlier fossil example --- ie a perfect way to falsify evolution would be to find a modern bunny fossil with its ancestor (or any other species). In the 150 years since darwin published his theory, no such fossil has been found.
There was the homology piece.
Bio-geography is another huge piece of evidence for evolution. Google does a fine job of explaining what that means.
You're also right -- taken independently, these three variables sure don't add up to macroevolution. Creationism or any other theory work just as well to explain these phenomenon. It's when you put all the evidence together, after testing, that you end up with evolution over creation.
At this point you may try and make the claim that the naturalist scienstists choose their creed over God's --- but this process of consolidating multiple pieces of independent facts (you cant dispute the fact that we've found fossils, noticed homology etc) is paramount to the construction of all other theories in science. The same process brought us relativity, quantum mechanics and maxwell's equations.
Okay, you appear to believe that given enough time, the cummulative effects of microevolutiory effects give rise to macroevolutionary changes. You point to the fossil record, homoolgy, and bio-geography as proof. Okay, let's look at the evidence.
A. Fossil Record
1. All the different, basic kinds of animals appear abruptly and fully functional in the strata - with no proof of ancestors.
2. Plants appear abruptly too. Scientists have been unable to find an Evolutionary history (beginning to end) for even one group of modern plants.
3. Contrary to common belief, most fossils are not of extinct types of animals. Most fossils are very similar (and often totally identical) to creatures living today. Evolutionary history should be filled with temporary, intermediate stages of Evolution, from amoeba to man. Where are they?
4. There is a continuing lack of evidence for Evolution in spite of the millions of fossils that have been discovered.
B. Homology
1. Homologous organisms exhibiting ‘unity of type’, would be expected to show homologous genes and homologous patterns of embryological development. But, wat is being discovered however, are non homologous genetic structures and different embryological development patterns.
2. Homologous structures[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
are arrived at by different routes and the cells giving rise to the different germ layers and their migration patterns are markedly dissimilar. Homologous attributes in the different classes of vertebrates (or even within the same species) are arrived at by different (non-homologous) routes from non-homologous sites in the embryo.[/FONT]
C. Bio-geography
1. The biogeography argument isn’t an argument in favor of evolution—it’s an argument against the Bible. Even if the argument is true
, proving the Bible is false doesn’t prove that evolution is true.
2.
The only real point of contention between creationists and evolutionists is how long it takes for living things to colonize a new area.
3. In Sursty, Iceland,
scientists studying how long it takes an ecosystem to develop. In less than 50 years Surtsey has developed an old-looking ecological system.