Okay.

Well, your first source does nothing to further your argument or deny mine in that they are the same process. It simply says that Darwin, 150 years ago, didn't think microevolution was enough to produce macroevolution. As I've shown already, Darwin was wrong in this regard as current scientist do agree that these are idential processes with only time being the differentiating factor.

Requested Berkeley Source(s):

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/about.php

I have no idea what you were attempting to address with your second source. It doesn't really say much of anything. It basically says we need to combine the evidence from different scientific fields to synthesize our understanding of evolution, and I think we've done quite a good job at that since that document was written.

We have tons of transitional fossils as I've explained already. You simply want ALL of them and that's an unrealistic expectation. Here you go:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#fish

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2a.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2b.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2c.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

http://www.transitionalfossils.com/

There are probably even more than millions of fossils, they are simply duplicates. But when there are an estimated 1-4 billion species to have existed, it's not at all surprising.

Punctuated equillibrium is still an evolutionary theory, not a creationist one, so I have no idea why you're arguing for it as it still would go against what you believe.

So where exactly is your heartburn?  Is it just with the people who believe we were created 10,000 years (or less) ago  by God, as is?  The 46% number?

Science denialists, so yeah the 46%.

Well, if it makes you feel better, by nature these surveys are bullshit.  Look at the source.  1012 random adults.  1012.  1012!!!!... out of 300,000,000+.  In my humble opinion, too small a sample size to be relevant right off the bat.

And just because someone voted for "God created in present form", doesn't mean they are denying science.  They might not have listened well.  They might not have "gave a shit" and felt pressured into saying yes to the survey and they cruised as fast as possible through it.  Etc. Etc.

Have you ever taken a phone survey?  I think I have, once.  Wanted to gouge my eyes out.  So fuck this survey, and stop spazing out.

Survey Methods 

Results for this USA Today/Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted May 10-13, 2012, with a random sample of 1,012 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.

Interviews are conducted with respondents on landline telephones and cellular phones, with interviews conducted in Spanish for respondents who are primarily Spanish-speaking. Each sample includes a minimum quota of 400 cell phone respondents and 600 landline respondents per 1,000 national adults, with additional minimum quotas among landline respondents by region. Landline telephone numbers are chosen at random among listed telephone numbers. Cell phone numbers are selected using random-digit-dial methods. Landline respondents are chosen at random within each household on the basis of which member had the most recent birthday.

Samples are weighted by gender, age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, education, region, adults in the household, and phone status (cell phone only/landline only/both, cell phone mostly, and having an unlisted landline number). Demographic weighting targets are based on the March 2011 Current Population Survey figures for the aged 18 and older non-institutionalized population living in U.S. telephone households. All reported margins of sampling error include the computed design effects for weighting and sample design.

In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

View methodology, full question results, and trend data.

For more details on Gallup's polling methodology, visit www.gallup.com.

I agree Macroevolution is BS. But other evolution proponents on this forum say otherwise.

Phenotypic changes? You mean phenotype? The way things looks does not always change? What?

So get me this straight. You actually believe that organisms supposedly 100+ million years old, and some that are  supposedly 400+ million years old, can remain the same physically, but humans supposedly evolved from an ape ancestor in just 7 million years? Really? If you want to believe that story.

There are many amber fossils, supposedly millions and millions of years old, and they look exactly identical like their modern counterparts. Somehow they just said no to evolution.

Evolutionists are shocked to see it. It was not expected. It goes against their evolution story pressupposition. Hence the following quote:

“Many leading evolutionary theorists ... have been persuaded by punctuated equilibrium that the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.”Gould, S.J. and Eldredge, N., 1993. Punctuated equilibrium comes of age, Nature, 366:223–224.

To say "well, some organisms just don't evolve even after 400+ million years" is a cheap cop-out. Seriously, it makes me laugh to think people think of evolution as scientific.

Prove that bats evolved. The following scientistswill take issue with your claim:

“Like the bats, the whales (using this term in a general and inclusive sense) appear suddenly in early Tertiary times, fully adapted by profound modifications.”
Colbert. E. H., M. Morales, and E. C. Minkoff. 2001. Evolution of the vertebrates: A history of the backboned animals through time, 5thed., New York: Wiley-Liss, Inc. p. 392

Again, you prove that you have no clue what evolution is. Evolution is not "Let's evolve into something different, just because it is fun". There are reasons why things evolved into other things and why other things no longer evolved into more other things. Humans did not evolve from an ape ancestor, apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor. But you alread< knew that, so there is no point in explaining it to you. You won't listen. This is something I've been wondering about the creatonists/die hard biblical lot, for like, ever: Why do these people feel so frightened about science?

I don't know about english wiki, but under amber in french counter parts they talk about some ancestror bee found in amber and other thing, and can follow up with google some discovery who talk about evolution in amber..

Anyway, i am surprised so many americain blindly trust a books writed per men with so many error in  this.

Here almost nobody trust in god anymore at least not how its describe in bible.

Lot of ppl have read bible, so if its the trust, how can this many religion come from same books in first place, just because ppl see what they want to see in this and nothing more, and its more easy to hope to heaven, and in a god who forgive every error and love you no matter what, that/then/as take/ing care of the earth we have and work to love everyone around us.

Btw i learned bible for over 5years, and i think its just a man books where we can follow some amazing thing in this, but you have to choice well and not take out of the context of when this was writed.

Sorry for my english per the way.

"Evolutionary biologists have long sought to understand the relationship between microevolution (adaptation), which can be observed both in nature and in the laboratory, and macroevolution (speciation and the origin of the divisions of the taxonomic hierarchy above the species level, and the development of complex organs), which cannot be witnessed because it occurs over intervals that far exceed the human lifespan. . . . [from the abstract] "Macroevolution posed a problem to Darwin because his principle of descent with modification predicts gradual transitions between small-scale adaptive changes in populations and these larger-scale phenomena, yet there is little evidence for such transitions in nature. Instead, the natural world is often characterized by gaps, or discontinuities. One type of gap relates to the existence of 'organs of extreme perfection', such as the eye, or morphological innovations, such as wings, both of which are found fully formed in present-day organisms without leaving evidence of a transition between them. These discontinuities, plus the discontinuous appearance and disappearance of taxa in the fossil record, form the modern conceptual divide between microevolution and macroevolution. . . . "Most evolutionary biologists think that Darwin explained macroevolution simply as microevolution writ large. In fact, Darwin had rather more to say about the relationship between microevolution and macroevolution and invoked additional principles to define it. . . . "Darwin's proposal carries a more general message for contemporary discussions of macroevolution, namely that microevolution alone cannot explain macroevolution." (David N. Reznick and Robert E. Ricklefs, "Darwin's bridge between microevolution and macroevolution." Nature 457:837,838,841, Feb. 12, 2009)

"New concepts and information from molecular, developmental biology, systematics, geology and the fossil record of all groups of organisms, need to be integrated into an expanded evolutionary synthesis. These fields of study show that large-scale evolutionary phenomena cannot be understood solely on the basis of extrapolation from processes observed at the level of modern populations and species. Patterns and rates of evolution are much more varied than had been conceived by Darwin or the evolutionary synthesis, and physical factors of the earth's history have had a significant, but extremely varied, impact on the evolution of life." (Carroll, Robert L. [Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology, Redpath Museum, McGill University, Montreal, Canada], "Towards a new evolutionary synthesis," Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 2000, Vol. 15, pp.27-32, p.27)

Did you read it carefully? It reads macroevolution can't be observed and it can't be extrapoloated from processes observed  at the population level.

None of your links show any photos that gives credence that it is an intermediate form nor is there anything about consensus of scientists that endorse their claim. Moreover there is no scientific evidence in any of your links that support its claims. Claiming something is an transitional form is much easier than providing scientific evidence that it is. Paleontology is a very subjective science

As you know if you have read the quotes, scientists admit the fossil record doesn't give credence to the evolution story.  You can read the quotes here http://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/fossils/missing-links/gaps/

I never argued for Punctuated Equilibrium. It was a theory postulated to explain away the absence of clear cut transitional forms that would give credence to the evolution story. Gould was open about the absence of transitional forms "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." (Gould; Evolution Now: A Century After Darwin)."

Of course, evolution is anything what evolutinionists want it to be as long it keeps their fairytale going.

Answer this question. Did evolutionists expect "living fossils" and amber fossils to have evolve, Yes or no? Did supposed millions of years of stasis contradict the evolutionists' predictions, yes or no?

If you answered No, then you need to take it up with the evolutionists I quoted.

1012 is a pretty solid sample size. If you conduct the random sample correctly, you get pretty accurate results, hence, the margin of error of 4 percent.