DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?

[Alter2Ego]

ORGANIC/BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION is the theory that the first living organism developed from nonliving matter.

No, it isn't. Abiogenesis is the hypothesis that the first living organisms devoloped from nonliving matter. Evolution is about what happens next.

ALTER2EGO -to- MISTER AGENDA:
That's the loophole some try to use, now that they realize they cannot explain how life started from non-life. So tell me, where did this "common ancestor" come from? Who gave it life, in order for all other living things in existence to have then evolved from it? Let me know.

that every single animal that has ever existed came from one common ancestor aka came from a single animal (macro-evolution). Is there evidence proving that humans or animals evolved from completely different beings than what they presently are?

Yes, and it's readily available to anyone who cares to educate themselves.

ALTER2EGO -to- MISTER AGENDA:
But that's just it. I have educated myself, and all I keep finding are admissions from paleontologists that the fossils record is full of nothing but gaps. The existence of gaps is another way of saying: "There are no bones linking one type of animal/species/family to an entirely different type." Below are a couple examples of what the paleontologists have been saying for the past 30 years.

According to the Bulletin of Chicago: Charles Darwin "was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would.... the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution." (Source: Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," by David M. Raup, January 1979, pages 22, 23, 25)


Scientist Steven Stanley spoke of "the general failure of the record to display gradual transitions from one major group to another." He went on further to say: "The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with [slow evolution.]" (Source: The New Evolutionary Timetable, by Steven M. Stanley, 1981, pages 71 and 77)


Yet another scientist, Niles Eldredge, also admitted: "The pattern that we were told to find for the last 120 years does not exist." (Source: The Enterprise, November 14, 1980, page E9)


I will respond to the remainder of your rebuttal in another post.