“The term ‘microevolution’ has recently become popular among the anti-evolution movement, and in particular among young Earth creationists. The claim that microevolution is qualitatively different from macroevolution is fallacious, as the main difference between the two processes is that one occurs within a few generations, whilst the other takes place over thousands of years (i.e. a quantitative difference).[3] Essentially they describe the same process.

The attempt to differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution is considered to have no scientific basis by any mainstream scientific organization, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science.[4] Contrary to belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level (“macroevolution”, i.e. speciation) has indeed been observed and documented by scientists on many occasions.[5]”

Therefore it is not surprising that New Scientist didn’t mention micro-evolution!

However, they also confuse the terms and should perhaps define them better. Are we talking of macro or micro evolution here?

I as a Bible based believer have no trouble with micro evolution, we see it often, it is repeated, it can be observed etc etc the basis for science.
But when it comes to macro evolution, the evolution of the solar system, metals and chemicals, the origin of life – then I have a problem.

Why do they never quote the full title of Darwins book? Which is:
The origin of the species by means of natural selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the struggle for life.

They portray Darwin as some form of scientist but his only education qualification was in theology!

Darwin had no compelling evidence – he had a theory, based on what he saw as he watched the life on the islands – there was no evidence and those creatures are still doing the same changes year after year depending on the weather! He saw micro evolution in action which we still see today!

In glancing through some of the other links from The New Scientist page, it strikes me how many times they use the words “Might, we think, Possibly, it is possible, perhaps, theory, etc etc” come on guys, you are supposed to be talking science here – where are the facts!
They refer to fossils – that are dated by looking at geometric charts that do not exists anywhere in the world – the figment of a lawyers imagination!
And still they keep confusing the issues and referring to micro evolution – and as previously stated: I have no problem with that!