"If we could show tendencies to actually change into another species, (gene changes in all of bone structure, color and size if we are talking about gradual evolution) in animals then I might agree that macro-evolution has some support,"

What do you call all the examples given then if not that?

"but that still doesn't give it the foundation to actually tell us where we came from."

So? All anyone can do is theorize based on the evidence we have now.

"Finding a few fossils (skulls say) that look a bit different doesn't tell us if it was indeed another race let alone if they were "related" (as in humans evolved from them or were hybrids of them) to human beings."

You underestimate the amount of information some bones can tell us.

"I still have yet to see why people think macro-evolution is scientific, though. It is a belief system, because it does not have any serious basis."

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".

Some evolution evidence:
- Genetics (changing of genes throughout generations)
- Fossil evidence (the gradient which I already pointed out exists)
- 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.)
- Large changes can occur with a single mutation of the body morphology gene, proven due to experiments with drosophilia
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPa...ml&dynoptions=

Where is this "no serious evidence"?

"Not necessarily, just like a wall has a 2-dimensional element, (which is contained in our 3-dimensional) world so could there be another dimension that exists which contains our universe."

Yes, necessarily. You're using the term incorrectly.

"I see...that is even harder for scientists to even find evidence for. This is exactly why people should be very careful to teach evolution as a theory."

It's based on the fact that the fossil record reflects this. The only debatable thing here is whether it was evolution that did it... Species did appear in large bursts in the past.

"the existence of macro-evolution cannot be proven unless we can observe it until either we can see a noticeable diffence, or if punctuated equilibrium was correct, until it occured. Assuming what we cannot see or test is unscientific."

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?

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.