There is no Observable Evidence for Macroevolution

"I want evidence for macroevolution that is undeniable, and so far the evidence you"ve given me is not convincing. If macroevolution is more than a theory (a.k.a. a law), then there must be evidence for it that I do not have to accept by my faith in the scientists, textbooks, or dating equipment. If there is observable evidence for macroevolution, it should be as plain and obvious to me as gravity.” Once again this is an amazing example of a blatant fundamental misunderstanding of how science works. I do not mean this as an ad hominem, but it MUST be stated - you lack even a high school understanding of the simple basic scientific concepts. Laws are not superior to theories, as you stated, they are two different concepts. It would be absurd for me to go into detail as to why you are painfully wrong, so I will provide a couple quotes a few links so you can look it up yourself. You NEED to learn the difference if you want to have scientific discussions. "We can use Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation to calculate how strong the gravitational pull is between the Earth and the object you dropped, which would let us calculate its acceleration as it falls, how long it will take to hit the ground, how fast it would be going at impact, how much energy it will take to pick it up again, etc. While the law lets us calculate quite a bit about what happens, notice that it does not tell us anything about why it happens. That is what theories are for. In the language of science, the word "theory" is used to describe an explanation of why and how things happen. For gravity, we use Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to explain why things fall.” (1) "Regardless of which definitions one uses to distinguish between a law and a theory, scientists would agree that a theory is NOT a "transitory law, a law in waiting". There is NO hierarchy being implied by scientists who use these words. That is, a law is neither "better than" nor "above" a theory. From this view, laws and theories "do" different things and have different roles to play in science.” (2) "Now obviously your hypothesis isn't an assumption, but the evidence that supports your hypothesis relies on the assumption that the earth is several billion years old.” Basically, your first two paragraphs deny that the earth is billions of years old. Once again, I can't waste precious characters explaining something that is observed, measured, tested, used, and confirmed by scientists daily in the fields of astronomy, cosmology, biology, physics, geology, chemistry, etc... Every single aspect of science relies on the same measurements. (4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)"...even though logically it doesn"t make since to believe that such a large and complex universe with laws that make sense to our human minds could be the result of an accident. Believing in a creator makes much more sense, because in the natural world wherever there is organized information (such as a book), there is an organizer of that information. It"s foolish to believe that this only applies in this day and age, but that 13 billion years ago accidents caused by nothing(2) created everything."This is a massive argument from ignorance. You don't understand it, therefore God did it. Look up this logical fallacy, because you're guilty of it here. Can't spend too many characters addressing every fallacy here, but I will like to point out that the laws of the universe that we use are DESCRIPTIVE, not PRESCRIPTIVE. You've got it backwards. We created "laws" of the universe to describe how the universe operates, rather than a god creating laws that the universe must obey."and we could know beyond the shadow of a doubt that they are past humans, and not just apelike creatures or intelligent humans (not dumb cavemen) that have a difference in appearance (i.e., larger skulls, etc., which, ironically, a larger skull would suggest a larger brain)."In what way is the latter ironic? That is THE reason why we developed larger skulls over time, for larger brains.For ape to human evolution, reference (11)(12)(13):"One of the most celebrated examples of transitional fossils is our collection of fossil hominids (see Figure 1.4.4 below). Based upon the consensus of numerous phylogenetic analyses, Pan troglodytes (the chimpanzee) is the closest living relative of humans. Thus, we expect that organisms lived in the past which were intermediate in morphology between humans and chimpanzees. Over the past century, many spectacular paleontological finds have identified such transitional hominid fossils.(http://www.talkorigins.org...) (A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern (B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My (C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My (D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My (E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My (F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My (G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My (H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My (I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y (J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y (K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y (L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y (M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y (N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern" Also, we have well known and documented transitional forms between fish, snakes, lizards, and frogs, between whales, dolphins, and other land mammals, between reptiles and other proto-mammals, between birds and dinosaurs, etc. (10) The evidence is astounding. There is no serious debate in science whether or not common descent happened. You can quote a handful of scientists that say the earth is 6,000 years old and that radiometric dating proves the bible, and other nonsense, but within the scientific community as a whole, there is no controversy. It's like the flat earth and the solid state theory. People still believe it and often come up with clever arguments, but they are full of misunderstandings and fallacies. Nobody takes them seriously anymore, and this includes creationists. We are apes, primates, this was determined decades ago, feel free to reject it, but the evidence is staring you right in the face every time you look in the mirror. (1) http://thehappyscientist.com...(2) http://science.kennesaw.edu...(3) http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...;(4) http://en.wikipedia.org...;(5) http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...;(6) http://www.universetoday.com...(7) http://www.aip.org...;(8) http://pubs.usgs.gov...;(9) http://ncse.com...;(10) http://www.transitionalfossils.com...;(11) http://www.talkorigins.org...;(12) http://www.talkorigins.org...;(13) http://www.talkorigins.org...;