"The fossil record only seems to indicate that different species appeared on the land, it doesn't tell us how they appeared there."

I never said that the record was proof by itself, but combined with the fact that species are changing now, it makes sense that those changes account for the differences seen in the past. What is unscientific?

"By the way, if evolution was so gradual, why don't we have fossils of every stage between each species."

Because fossils form under very specific situations. we have very good gradients of many species, horses, because of their habitats, are probably the best example.

"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)"

Except for the ones we already listed. I'm glad we're all on the same page here. Even though you insisted it was, being heterozygous for sickle-cell anemia really isn't detrimental. Besides that, being beneficial is irrelevant since evolution means change. Humanity is a bad example since natural selection, a key part of evolution, doesn't apply to us (we don't breed randomly, no traits are selected for). Also, apart from that, detailed medical records haven't been around long enough to record significant differences in the population. Humanity is a really bad example.

Better examples are found in animals, many of which I already listed.

"I doubt evolutionists have actually found the gradient of skeletons between each species, without that, the gradual evolution has some trouble."

That's because it's a little impossible to have a gradient for EVERY species. If we see the mechanism works in some animals, applying it to all is extrapolation, but it's also simple logic. All animals, now and then have DNA that works the same. that's what lets us extrapolate back.

"Give me an example of a situation in which at least all the important attributes that we have seen. (size and bone structure especially)"

What do you mean by "all important attributes"? It really doesn't matter. Speciation happens! just because it doesn't fit your version of evolution doesn't matter.

"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)"

Please, experts know the difference between a mutated human and another species.

"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."

Other than the fact that we've found many examples of lesser-evolved very human-like remains consistant with the theory (the fact that we don't have a perfect gradient is irrelevant), and we've found remains back from those two, showing common ancestory. Did you read the link on human ancestory I listed?

"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"

And what's your comment on micro adding up to macro? You agree things change in small ways... After 1000 years, do they what, stop being they get too different? I don't understand your logic. Why WOULDN'T they keep changing until they were a different species?

Also, you acknowledge microevolution happens, yet you quipe about how many bad mutations their are. If mutations are so faulty, how do you explain microevolution?