After having been an active participant in this forum for years then sitting back and just reading for several more I find that I am rather saddened by the level of ignorance that is currently accepted around here. No, the fact that you don't understand something does not invalidate it in any way. The fact that you have a "problem" with it doesn't matter. Life on earth evolved from a single common ancestor and until there's a better explanation that's what happened.
There are thousands if not tens of thousands of creation stories out there. Not one is supported by the evidence. Including Genesis. Creationists of all colors, old, young, aliens... etc. Not one bit of proper evidence to support your claims exists. Yes, I know... blasphemy! The Bible is true because it must be true. Literally true. Ok... I know you believe that. But it's not scientific and it's not supported scientifically. Evolution is. Every fossil is a transitional fossil. (that is if that creature had offspring) To claim there are no transitional fossils is just showing your ignorance of what a transitional fossil actually is. To claim there are differences between macro and micro evolution does the same. You can't show me the line between them. Where is there a magical barrier that stops creatures from evolving? Where is it stated that people must observe something for it to be true? We have observed every single stage of evolution including speciation. And yet, I have heard it stated, "a lizard is still a lizard." Which again shows you don't understand what you're talking about. If a dog ever gave birth to cat it would prove evolution to be false. Parents NEVER EVER gave birth to a child they didn't recognize. Evolution is gradual. Even Punctuated Evolution is still so gradual as to fit into these conditions.
The Theory of Evolution is the single most supported scientific explanation of anything in any field of scientific endeavor and here it is being debated in light of religious texts as if that matters. If there's a problem here it's with your understanding and your insistence upon literalism. If, as creationists insist, God created the universe, then who is closer to God? The scientist studying God's work first hand or the creationist who has read a book that was inspired by God and then written down and translated time and time again? Considering the book has two chapters about the creation of the world and those two chapters are different... I'd say the scientist.
I know this won't change anyone's mind. But in this time of Trump it needed to be said. Again.