If you accept adaptation within species you accept evolution on a large scale as well. Since adaptation doesn't just magically stop at one taxonomy. It's like saying you believe yards exist but not miles.

microevolution, yes. Macroevolution? No. As a former fundamental Christian, we didn't believe there is enough time for any large-scale adaptation to take place. We were also taught that Darwin even denied his life's work before he died and that the "theory of evolution" is only a theory and cannot be proven because it has never been observed on a large enough scale to show that a something like opposable thumbs could occur by accident and the gene causing the mutation could be passed down and considered a positive thing by random biological mutation.

As a FORMER fundamentalist, I know that's bullshit and it's more likely that long-term evolution in the unending universe over likely 20+ billion years, planet Earth has got it right. Or probably even more likely is that there are infinite uinverses, and in some of them a god DID create the universe and in this one we actually develop time travel, go back in time and leave our DNA in the primordial ooze to kick-start evolution. We evolved from our future selves.

Yeah because during Darwin's time there was barely any known fossils. Nowadays the fossil record accurately shows the development of life so much within the framework of evolution that it is one of the best the best known evidences that it is a fact.

>microevolution, yes. Macroevolution? No.

I've never understood creationists that use this argument. It's like them watching a counter that ticks up by one every year, saying "yep okay I agree that it's increasing" but denying that it will ever reach 1000 because "It can't be observed within our lifetime!"

There's literally no difference between the two besides timescale, and to say that the former is true also confirms the latter.

again, I no longer believe it, but to play devil's advocate: if you observe a clock hand ticking every second, you can't make the jump that after a while the clock hand will tick every 100,000th of a second. If we observe how a single-celled organism's second-generation has twice the number of flagellae then you can't really be 100% sure that after 100 million years a single-celled organism could evolve enough in order to contain milllions of cells and become hair and teeth and bone and shit. It is indeed a HUGE leap. And yeah, we can never observe it, and we don't really see much microevolution at all - mostly genetic deformities combined with Darwinism and we still don't have absolute proof. I think the only microevolution we can prove is the small incestuous town in Switzerland who is immune to heart disease. But it wasn't nature - it was a biological mutation that was allowed to continue because two people with the mutation fucked each other and that increases the chance it gets passed down, and then you gotta keep it going so the mutation doesn't die out. It's likely it will die out very soon unless we synthesize the mutation and give it to everyone.

I mean really - think about just how fucking long single-celled organisms just moved around and did nothing before one decides "hey, I need a reproduction mechanism"? I mean, can a single-celled, non-reproductive organism with not even a mitochondria "decide" things? What about "living organisms" before DNA was made possible (before GATC existed)? I know the rule of averages and also considering multiverse theory there is a 100% chance that we live in the universe where it truly did take ~16 billion years for the universe to eveolve and produce us. But maybe that's just as hard to believe as that some unseeable spirit spoke it into existence. The best part? We can prove/disprove neither!

There's hordes of examples of "microevolution" (which is just evolution btw)

Sounds like a basic D&D campaign to me.