DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?

[Reforged]

Macroevolution, on the other hand, is a whale evolving into a bear or a squirrel evolving into a bat (Charles Darwin's claims). There is no evidence in the fossils that any animal in existence is the result of macroevolution. Telling me that it takes 3.5 billion years for macroevolution to occur is another way of saying: "We've got no proof that it ever happened."

Charles Darwin quote from "The Origin of Species":
"In North America the black bear was seen . . . swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale."

Now, lets spare you the embarrassment of admitting the fact you got it the wrong way round in a haste to post some more drivel for a moment... "As monstrous as a whale". Not into a whale, as monstrous as a whale. He compared what the bear might evolve into to something large and aquatic should its habitat dictate many small changes (micro evolution) that would eventually come together to form big changes (macro evolution) over millions of years. He did not suggest, at any point, a transformation from a bear into an actual whale.
Could you please also point out in this paragraph where he says this had actually taken place as you just attempted (and failed) to state he did? It seemed to me like he was simply speculating what could happen.

I'm waiting for your reply with baited breath... :-)

P.S. I took the liberty of removing the blue from your writing so as not to cause a headache to people who aren't as excited by pretty colors as you seem to be. I hope you don't mi- actually, thats a lie. I don't particularly care either way.