There is no Observable Evidence for Macroevolution

"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." You've clearly missed the entire point of my initial argument, which was to present to you an (admittedly simple version of a) scientific hypothesis, one that makes predictions and is falsifiable, to outline what my argument WILL BE. I haven't given specific evidence yet, but rather said that if macroevolution was true, we should be able to make the stated observations, and that IF we were able to confirm those hypotheses, that it would be some evidence, not even necessarily proof, but some evidence supporting macroevolution, which would disprove your claim that there is none. "...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." There were no assumptions made at all, they were hypotheses that outlined what would support the argument for macroevolution if it were true. It was simply an opening preamble to the arguments I was planning on making. 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. "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.)." This statement displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the basic concept of evolution and how it leads to the formation of new species. Let me make 2 quick points related to this:1) 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. The timescale involved in the change between "kinds", in some cases millions of years, makes it impossible (in most cases, although not all - but I won't muddle this debate with details and go down another path I'd rather not) for us to "observe" any sort of evolving taking place in the way you're alluding to. 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. 2) Take a look at this image as it does a brilliant job simply and succinctly showing this concept of small changes over time and how at any given point an observer wouldn't be able to see one form leading to another, but on evolutionary timescales such a change would be clear and obvious: http://i.imgur.com... "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)." This is again showing a misunderstanding of the concept. I will say it again more simply to try to make it more clear for you - if macroevolution was a valid hypothesis, we SHOULD find homologies in structure and function of specific parts of the body, and that their usefulness or lackthereof is irrelevant to this because the specific similarities would support the hypothesis that such a change from one form to another happened. (I ran out of space so had to condense the following down significantly) The evolution from marine lizard to modern snakes over the last ~80 million years is an interesting example as it shows the resulting loss of front and hind legs, and the remnants (whether used or not) of their lineage with hip/pelvic bones still present even though no legs are anymore. (1) See Pachyrhachis, Eupodophis, Haasiophis, and Najash, that all have the basic leftover leg structures from their ancestors the lizard. (2) If we hypothesize that snakes evolved from lizards, we would then hope to find fossil forms that showed stages in this transition, as well as find remnant pieces that the original species would have used that would either have been coopted for new uses or rendered unused as vestiges, and we have found this time and time again. I could name a dozen other examples between different species here, but it would be rather redundant. These observations, on their own, do not prove macroevolution happened, but they do provide excellent evidence that fit into the hypothesis and time and time again strengthen scientific hypotheses that are made about specific relationships between species. "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." This is it - this absolutely KILLS your argument and removes it from the realm of science. I want to reiterate here the entire crux of my argument, the hypothesis of common descent, and the scientific method in general, is that is is FALSIFIABLE. Science operates by making hypotheses, and then going out in the world and testing those hypotheses and seeing if the observations match. The strength of a scientific theory is it's predictive power - and it also overtly says what it would take for the hypothesis to be wrong. The theory that we were designed CAN BE MADE TO FIT any observation, it is a proposed theory that has an answer to everything, and a theory that explains everything explains nothing. What you're able to do is explain away anything you observe and say well yes that makes sense because the designer can do anything he wants, and that's not evidence for macroevolution because my design theory explains it away. It has absolutely no predictive power, and has the power to post-hoc rationalize any observations to fit the theory because, at it's core, it involves a supernatural power that can basically do whatever you want him to do. Science make hypotheses, sees if observations fit, and adjusts the hypothesis accordingly. If they are correct, the hypothesis is strengthened, if they are not, it is discarded. Design theory makes any and all observations fit the designer's design. It is an unfalsifiable theory with no predictive power, and subsequently is not scientific. "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." Apparently 8,000 characters goes by very quickly, and I ran out of space, so in my final argument I will outline an extremely well known and accepted list of transitional forms between humans and their ape-like ancestors, showing gradual changes over time resulting in distinct forms/species. 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? (1) http://en.wikipedia.org...; (2) http://dinosaurs.about.com...m