DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?

[Alter2Ego]

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:
1. Just like Charles Darwin, the modern-day evolution scientific community asserts

You (or whoever you copied that from) makes it sound like the scientific community is making a bare assertion, rather than reporting what the available physical evidence shows.

ALTER2EGO -to- MISTER AGENDA:
I copied the definition of "evolution theory" from a scientific website and identified it with the weblink in my opening post. Here it is again.

"The common descent of all organisms from (more or less) a single ancestor."

http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Evolution/

2. Fossils are the bones of long-dead animals. Do fossils exist that show evolutionary transition of one type of animal to an entirely different type of animal (eg. a whale evolving into a bear)--which is an example of macro-evolution?

You mean like a land animal's descendants involving into whales? That happens to be a transition particularly well-illuminated in the fossil record: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans

ALTER2EGO -to- MISTER AGENDA:
You are complaining about me quoting Ann Coulter, while you have the nerve to use Wikipedia as your only source! Now, that's a switch. Anybody can post stuff on Wikipedia—including people without credentials. That's why I use other sources along with Wikipedia when citing them.

The transitions you and Wikipedia are claiming to be "particularly well-illuminated in the fossil record" are actually examples of variation within the same species of animals (microevolution). In other words, the animal didn't change into anything other than what it started off as. It might have grown bigger or smaller based upon the availability of food, but it's still the same animal.

There have been instances when over-zealous paleontologists looked at partial skeletons of two entirely unrelated animals and thought it was evidence of one animal evolving into something else. This later turned out to be false.