In our biology classes, we were taught the theory of evolution and how it works in our world. Evolution, according to Darwin, consists of such terms as "natural selection," "survival of the fittest," and "selective mutations" that basically mean that species will "evolve" and change to forms that are better equipped to master their environment. Well, I decided to look a little deeper into evolutionary theory and I was amazed to discover something very curious. When evolution is broken down, you have micro-evolution and macro-evolution. I will concur that a baby will inherit traits from both parents and that, in a small way, is a form of micro-evolution in process. However, how much evidence exists to collaborate the theory of macro-evolution? How many fossils have we found to connect us with apes and chimps? How many "bridge fossils" have we found for major species change among other animals? Absolutely none! Then consider this: It seems a bit odd to me that so many scientists have embraced evolution yet ignored some very important problems with it -- especially macro-evolution. I'm not suggestion that evolution isn't a possible theory to fit the observable world, but I just find it odd that any theory would have such weight attached to it when there is such a lack of observable evidence for it.