Correction to this piece: I was apparently mistaken about the use of the terms "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution" by reputable biologists. My apologies. I still stand by the gist of this piece and the video it links to; but I regret the error and any confusion it may have caused.
And now, yet another video from my new science video hero, cdk007.
This one is on the supposed difference between "micro" and "macro" evolution. In case you're not familiar: One of the arguments used by creationists is that, while of course "micro-evolution" (i.e., the evolution of small changes within a species) can be observed in the field and in the lab, "macro-evolution" (i.e., the evolution of one species to another) hasn't been observed... and therefore it can't happen by itself, and needs an intelligent designer to intervene and make it happen.
First, just so everyone's clear: "Macro-evolution" and "micro-evolution" are made-up words concocted by creationists to make themselves sound scientific. Biologists don't use them. They're scientifically meaningless. They're just different stages in the evolutionary process; "macro" is just "micro" over a longer period of time.
Also, "macro-evolution" (if people insist on calling it that) has been observed, both in the field and in the lab. Just so we're clear.
So this video makes clear the absurdity of this argument, with a beautiful and elegant analogy. Video after the jump.
Oh, once again: The music in the background is fun, but it's not necessary -- all the actual information is visual.