No, we need to see a species change though, it doesn't have to be a fish/dog transformation. Any type of noticeable change would give some evidence for the possibility of macro-evolution, but would not imply that we started from a single cell.I still have yet to see you back that statement up, yet you keep saying it. The only thing you've said basically is "we haven't seen a fish turn into a dog".
Yes, I know mutations occur, but that is not real evidence to show macro-evolution occured in the past.Genetics (changing of genes throughout generations)
The fossil record only seems to indicate that different species appeared on the land, it doesn't tell us how they appeared there. By the way, if evolution was so gradual, why don't we have fossils of every stage between each species.It's based on the fact that the fossil record reflects this.
Exactly.The only debatable thing here is whether it was evolution that did it...
As I've said before, this gives the same amount of evidence for both sides. (or more for creation)Species did appear in large bursts in the past.
Specifically I am attacking theories without concrete tests to show their validity. Gravity has been extensively tested, so it is a strong theory. Macro-Evolution (starting from one cell in particular) has no possible tests to show it's validity unless we could either travel back in time or view the past.No, there are many theories people (and I'm sure you) readily accept without 100% observed proof just because they have a lot of proof. we don't know how gravity works, but I bet you're pretty sure it's there. Are you really going to call any calculations involving gravity unscientific?
Some evolution evidence:
Obviously talking about mutations. As I've said before, mutations are usually detrimental. (I have yet to hear of one that actually is beneficial in humans)- Genetics (changing of genes throughout generations)
I doubt evolutionists have actually found the gradient of skeletons between each species, without that, the gradual evolution has some trouble.- Fossil evidence (the gradient which I already pointed out exists)
Give me an example of a situation in which at least all the important attributes that we have seen. (size and bone structure especially)- speciation happening now (I'm still confused as to what you're talking about in the first paragraph of your post. Speciation IS happening. It's proven.)
Old bones are often either not completely intact or could be the result of a small mutation of a human. (in the cases of those skulls)You underestimate the amount of information some bones can tell us.
As I've said, the part of evolution that is certainly unscientific is the part that says that we did evolve from lesser beings, as it cannot be shown or be given evidence through any means. micro-evolution is scientific, because it can be observed in action, macro-evolution is a huge extrapolation but it can just be thought of as a theory, because it is theoretically possible no matter the bad results we tend to get from mutations.I just really, really, really don't understand why you think evolution is so flawed that it' ridiculous. Flawed, yes, but "unscientific"? Your claims are completely baseless! It really seems to me that you don't understand the theory, since we've corrected you several times, and because of that you reject it due to your faith. Rejecting it based on faith I understand, but not due to science. It's a perfectly valid theory.
