1984 & A/S/K revisited

[Undeceived]

It stands that Macroevolution has never been observed-- presupposition.

False. Evolution was not the first theory of its kind, there were previous presuppositions about a lack of evolution that were blown out of the water.

Could you elaborate, please? Hard examples?

Your quote on the difference between micro and macro is misinformed. Macro involves speciation via new information being added to the genome.

Added? Things are never added to nor removed from a genome, only changed.

If that were true, how would a simple slug evolve into an intricately complex mammal? Just google "adding information to genome" and you'll find this to be a scientific fact.

Whereas microevolution can occur with existing genes by a process of Natural Selection, only random mutations are able to drive macroevolution.

Proof that you have no idea what evolution actually is. Nor do you know what natural selection is if you did not know the role random mutations plays in natural selection. Macroevolution is simply a bunch of microevolution.

Okay, technically microevolution can occur with mutations also. Micro refers to change "below the level of species" while macro refers to change "at or above the level of species." In other words, Macro requires speciation to occur. And while micro can work without mutations, macro must have mutations in order to develop more complex life and allow speciation. I don't know what you're saying about natural selection and mutations. They are quite independent of each other. Natural selection takes the current gene pool and eliminates parts of it. Mutations modify the gene pool, which is grown through gene duplication.

The fact that we have as many fossils as we do have that confirm evolution just goes to show how correct the theory is.

We have a lot of extinct species. Similarity still doesn't imply causality. Supposition. This is a black-and-white issue here. Either you know the fossils are transitional or you don't. Just the fact that Evolution is a 'theory' indicates that it contains some presuppositions. I don't know why you are so up-in-arms about this reality.

Oh man, are you making my job easy here or what? We have transitional forms of those things: dinosaurs to birds- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx

And fish to land animals- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik

And thanks for making my job easy. I refer to a past thread (feel free to read): https://atheistforums.org/thread-10176-p...+Tiktaalik

You can find explanations for their debunking all over the internet, but the gist is this: The Archaeopteryx has since been reclassified by paleontologists as a true bird because each of its features is either found in true birds or is absent in many reptiles. One year after the Tiktaalik's pronouncement as a transitional fossil, footprints were discovered in an older strata.