1984 & A/S/K revisited

[Undeceived]

List of transitional fossils by no means comprehensive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tra...al_fossils

Let me ask you this: how do you know these are transitional fossils and not dead-end species? By presupposing Evolution first, of course. That's the point I'm trying to make. Evolution is on equal par with religion in that it has to presuppose outside beliefs. Esquilax tried to argue that the fossil record is proof of Evolution, but it is clear that cannot be the case. If he simply means that the fossil record is consistent with, along with other things, a process like Evolution, I would dispute that too. There is a dating gap: http://www.icr.org/article/dating-gap/ 99.9% of all organisms that have ever lived are dead now. Why do we find hundreds of fossils for one species, but not one from millions of other species that must have existed in the same time period? Where are all the transitional fossils? What about one link between birds and dinosaurs, or fish and land animals? I'm just making a cursory argument here, because this is not a thread on Evolution. The point is that most people, if they looked at the fossil record without any prior beliefs, would not conclude Evolution occurred. A presupposition must be made.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

Within the Modern Synthesis school of thought, macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution.[8] Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one – the only difference between them is of time and scale. As Ernst W. Mayr observes, "transspecific evolution is nothing but an extrapolation and magnification of the events that take place within populations and species...it is misleading to make a distinction between the causes of micro- and macroevolution”.[8] However, time is not a necessary distinguishing factor – macroevolution can happen without gradual compounding of small changes; whole-genome duplication can result in speciation occurring over a single generation - this is especially common in plants.

http://matricsuploaded.co.za/index.php?o...nt&print=1

It is interesting to note that the same mechanisms that drive micro-evolution also drive macro-evolution. Whereas micro-evolution can be observed (insect resistance to insecticides, bacterial resistance to antibiotics etc.), macro-evolution cannot be studied directly. Evidence for macro-evolution comes from a study of fossils, comparative anatomy, comparative embryology, comparative molecular studies and biogeography (which is the geographical distribution of species). Although this is all indirect evidence, it is factually overwhelming and supports the theory of evolution.

It stands that Macroevolution has never been observed-- presupposition. Your quote on the difference between micro and macro is misinformed. Macro involves speciation via new information being added to the genome. Whereas microevolution can occur with existing genes by a process of Natural Selection, only random mutations are able to drive macroevolution.