Thanks to Gary Rosenberg for the clear update on Microevolution and Macroevolution. I can see now that they aren't just new labels for old wine, though the bottles have certainly been around awhile. A classic example of an organ that may have developed by a drastic evolutionary step is the chordate jaw, based on various threads of evidence (anatomical, embryological, paleontological), it seems as though the lower jaw may have derived from the misplacing of the forward pair of ribs. This would have looked like a birth defect, as Paul Monfils said. But THIS birth defect would have enabled the fish to capture prey by grasping it, instead of sucking or rasping it--a tremendous advantage. If something like this conjectural scene really happened, then we have an example of the advanced fishes arising in one generation from the more primitive fishes. That will do nicely for an example of MACROevolution. As to the eye, it has often been cited as an organ that requires so many parts to work right that it could not conceivably have been developed by gradual stages--"everything has to work right from the start for the eye to work at all". But if one actually looks into the facts, rather than sitting in one's chair theorizing on what may or may not be, one finds that the eyes of various animals do indeed show every conceivable gradational stage, from a mere sensitivity to light, to a well-developed eye with retina and lens, as in vertebrates and cephalopods. And all of these eyes are useful to the animals that have them; the fact is that even being able to distinguish light and dark is useful; a sharp image is not required. When the facts are looked at in detail, the old eye argument turns out to be a powerful one in favor of MICROevolution. Most people don't realize this--but now you do! If you would like to read more about these aspects of evolution, see George Gaylord Simpson's classic, "The Meaning of Evolution". Andrew K. Rindsberg Geological Survey of Alabama