There is no Observable Evidence for Macroevolution

I, too, agree that certain groups of animals do evolve into variants of that kind. But they do not change kinds. For example, there are many species within the dog kind. A Chihuahua and a Great Dane are both dogs, or, in other words, the original type of dog changed into different species but did not change into different kinds (i.e., it did not change into the cat kind). A kind is any group of organisms that can interbreed and produce offspring capable of reproducing. I do not use the word species in this definition because what determines the species of an organism is a highly controversial topic, thus there are dozens of definitions of species. You stated that "[i]f we were to hypothesize that there is common descent between species, when we study the fossil record as a whole we should see an apparent and gradual change over time between different distinct species." The problem with this scenario is that, though there may be similarities between two kinds (or two species within a kind), the assumption is made that species X evolved from, or, like you said, "shares a common ancestor with", species Y. This is based on the presupposition that a certain kind of organism (say, an ape) can evolve into another kind of organism (a human being) even though we cannot observe (meaning, see or witness in our lifetime) this phenomenon. Their are examples in the present day of microevolution (Darwin's finches for example) that are observable, but the fact is (in the case of Darwin's finches) that the birds were still birds after Darwin had observed them gradually changing. Allow me to explain. Each type of Darwin's finches are in the kingdom Animalia, phylum Chordata, class Aves, order Passeriformes, and family Thraupidae(1). The differences in the finches occur in the genera under family Thraupidae, in which the finches belong to genus Geospiza, Camarhynchus, Certhidea, Pinaroloxias, or Platyspiza. And then, of course, there are various species under each genera. The fact is that the only evolution that we've been able to observe (without relying on the fossil record or missing links) is microevolution because the changes in the organism that is "evolving" take place within the that kind of organism (i.e., birds evolve into birds, bacteria evolve into bacteria, etc.). The next point you make is referring to parts of the body that creatures have that appear to have no use (like the appendix in humans). In an article on Scientific America, "Loren G. Martin, professor of physiology at Oklahoma State University" replied to the question "What is the function of the human appendix? Did it once have a purpose that has since been lost?", saying, "Among adult humans, the appendix is now thought to be involved primarily in immune functions. Lymphoid tissue begins to accumulate in the appendix shortly after birth and reaches a peak between the second and third decades of life, decreasing rapidly thereafter and practically disappearing after the age of 60. During the early years of development, however, the appendix has been shown to function as a lymphoid organ, assisting with the maturation of B lymphocytes (one variety of white blood cell) and in the production of the class of antibodies known as immunoglobulin A (IgA) antibodies. Researchers have also shown that the appendix is involved in the production of molecules that help to direct the movement of lymphocytes to various other locations in the body."(2) Whether or not you were referring to the appendix, I do not know, but the point I am making is that we cannot assume that because the function of a certain body part is unknown that it is simply a "remnant" of our "primate ancestors," even if the supposed "primate ancestor" has the same part (i.e., ducks and chickens both have beaks but neither one evolved from the other). On the topic of genetics, your claim that similarities between DNA is based on your presupposition that we evolved. In the same way, my claim that similarities in DNA just point to a common designer is based on my presupposition that we were created. Regarding genetics, EvolutionNews.org wrote, "This isn't a new 'breakthrough'--we've known about close genetic similarities between humans and chimps for over a decade. Sure, they just finished decoding the chimp genome but it actually lessened our knowledge of human/chimp similarities rather than upping it. Similarities could easily be the result of 'common design' rather than common descent--where a designer wanted to design organisms on a similar blueprint and thus used similar genes in both organisms. This doesn't challenge ID [intelligent design]. "But it turns out that similarities depend on how you measure them. One study which considered insertions and deletions realized that 'our perceived sequence divergence of only 1% between these two species [humans and chimps] appears to be erroneous, because this work [...] puts both species much further apart.' "(3) You claim there is "overwhelming evidence for macroevolution," but the only evidence you have provided me with are scenarios that demonstrate the theory and not actual cases of macroevolution. The fact is, microevolution is observable in the present day, but in order to believe in macroevolution I need to assume that microevolution eventually leads to macroevolution and I have to assume that there is a missing link that connects me to an ancient primate found in the fossil record. (1)http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_finches (2)http://www.scientificamerican.com... (3)http://www.evolutionnews.org...