There is no Observable Evidence for Macroevolution

"This is specifically how science works - it makes hypotheses and then attempts to make observations to sees if those observations fit the given hypotheses - it does not presuppose what you hypothesize is true." One of the definitions of a hypothesis is "something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption"(1). 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. You wrote, "The evolution from marine lizard to modern snakes over the last ~80 million years . . .," which is a claim that relies on the assumption that the earth has even been around for the past 80 million years. I would very much like to known what method of dating you are relying on for this claim, because I need to be convinced of the reliability of the method before I can believe that the earth is millions or billions of years old (or, approximately 4.54 billion years old, like many scientists claim). "Unfortunately, some things in this universe take hundreds, thousands, or even millions of years to happen, including formation of stars, planets, changes in weather patterns, etc., but the fact that we can't observe those changes happening right now in our lives doesn't make them not true." Again, you are relying on a universe that creates itself over the course of millions of years. Logically, this is impossible to comprehend. When we read a book, we do not say "wow, I wonder how many years this took to evolve?" because we know there had to have been an author, even if we cannot see that author. A single amoeba's DNA contains about as much information as an Encyclopedia Britannica, but we still say it was not created, but instead we say that it evolved. I agree that just because we cannot witness something right now does not mean that that something did not happen, but if we chose to believe in a universe that is billions of years old, we must rely heavily on the method used and scientists involved in the dating of the universe, earth, etc. So either we need lots of evidence, and a little faith, or we need some evidence (with the addition of certain assumptions about the evidence based on a previous hypothesis, i.e., that any dating system that tells us the earth is billions of years old is right because it agrees with our previous hypothesis that the earth is billions of years old) and a lot of faith. And, according to Richard Dawkins, "faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence." "It's almost as if you think that one day a dog gives birth to a cat, and that's macroevolution, and that is nothing more than a caricature of the position and displays a massive misunderstanding." My point is not that a dog gives birth to a cat and that"s macroevolution, my point is that we cannot, in our lifetimes or our descendants lifetimes, observe a change in kinds. We can observe changes within a kind (like a mentioned earlier) but, like you said, we cannot observe a dog giving birth to a cat. I understand that you believe microevolution is, in a sense, just a small segment of macroevolution, like the photo you included in your argument clearly demonstrated. But let me ask you this, how does microevolution (like the changes in Darwin"s finches) eventually lead to the finches changing kinds (say, becoming reptiles in the next 50 million years)? We can assume that it will change kinds, but based on the evidence we are able to observe, it will only change in minor details (i.e., size, beak shape, color, etc., which are all changes that affect the species""or even the genera""that the bird belongs to but it will not affect the kind of animal it is: a bird.) I find it interesting that intelligent design "absolutely KILLS [my] argument and removes it from the realm of science," even though some of the most well known scientists have believed in an intelligent designer, including, but not limited to, Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, Galileo Galilei, and Nicolaus Copernicus. It"s much less scientific to believe in a universe that is the result of a cosmic accident (which many scientists, including Richard Dawkins, believe) and that creatures have just evolved from lower creatures (like amoebae), 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. "I want to ask you this and I would much appreciate a direct answer - If I was able to show you examples of fossils showing gradual changes from great apes, approximately 15 million years ago, to modern humans, showing changes in traits like jaw shape/structure and brain size, moving from clearly ape-like to clearly human-like, would you consider that any evidence for macroevolution?" Again, how do you know that this supposed evidence for macroevolution is 15 million years old? Because you want a direct answer, I would only be able to believe the evidence is actually evidence of molecules-to-man evolution if the dating system was reliable 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). 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. (1)http://www.thefreedictionary.com... (2)http://old.richarddawkins.net...