Not really surprising, this is the same country that burnt people thinking that witches existed a few hundred years ago

No, we cannot reasonably reproduce the evolution from non-flying animals to flying ones in laboratory setttings. 
Yes, scientists haveprduced observational evidence of fossils of creatures sequentially evolving to be more capable of flying. 

Evolutionary science doesn't have lower standards, it's just that you are so opposed to what that science is reporting that you view it with not only much more skepticism and attention to potential weak points but also with great eagerness to accept whatever criticism is offered even if the criticism is weak. 

The reason Dawkins said that we haven't observed it while it's happening is that an individual doesn't evolve.  Over time, the individuals in the species evolve to become physically different than what they used to be.  But this happens from generation to generation so you can't "see" them changing.  The difference in a single generation of individuals would probably be impossible to detect compared to the normal deviation of individuals within a species.  For instance, let's say, just for the sake of argument, that humans are evolving to be taller.  Well, there is still a great deal of variation within humanity as far as how tall people are, so if one generation was on average 1/5th of an inch taller than the older one, that wouldn't really be apparent. 

It's not that we don't see evolution because of how long it takes.  We don't see it because you literally can't see that evolution is happening.  You can only see that it has happened. 

I would also like to let Dawkins give some context to his own quote: 
MOYERS: Is evolution a theory, not a fact?
DAWKINS: Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening.
MOYERS: What do you mean it's been observed?
DAWKINS: The consequences of. It is rather like a detective coming on a murder after the scene. And you… the detective hasn't actually seen the murder take place, of course. But what you do see is a massive clue. Now, any detective…
MOYERS: Circumstantial evidence.
DAWKINS: Circumstantial evidence, but masses of circumstantial evidence. Huge quantities of circumstantial evidence. It might as well be spelled out in words of English. Evolution is true. I mean it's as circumstantial as that, but it's as true as that.

Evolution of the

Joe Schmoe's belief holds back progress, be it on his personal/family level or on a societal level, filled with Joe Schmoes and their harmless beliefs. If humanity has any hope of meaningful progress and enlightenment, Joe Schmoe cannot be irrelevant in that equasion.

Pretty sure they were mostly hanged.  Also, your profile says you're from the UK, which means your country executed ten times as many people for witchcraft than America did.  (Leaving aside the point that the colonies were also British then, lol)  Although, I'm sure England had a lot more people than the colonies did then.  Point is, you don't know as much history as you think you do.

[edit:  ten times as a bottom estimate.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch_trials_in_the_early_modern_period#Numbers_of_executions ]

I find this fascinating.

Given no evidence for your belief, why would you choose god specifically to replace what is uknown to you (the true origin of the universe)? Why not something entirely different, yet equally unproven?

The question is entirely rhetorical, of course, because the reason you "chose" your particular god is entirely down to you being born in a specific place on this planet, into a particular culture. All things being equal, with only the place of birth being different, you may have chosen Vishnu, Izanagi, or the galactic warlord Xenu.

What exactly is the problem with acknowledging you just DON'T KNOW, and pursue the truth rather than proclaiming you already have it?

I know scientists can't reproduce macroevolution. That's why it isn't hard science because of lack of observational data.

There are no transitional fossils according to scientists:

"Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from one ancestral form to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series. New types often appear quite suddenly, and their immediate ancestors are absent in the geological strata. The discovery of unbroken series of species changing gradually into descending species is very rare. Indeed the fossil record is one of discontinuities, seemingly documenting jumps (saltations) from one type of organism to a different type. This raises a puzzling question: Why does the fossil record fail to reflect the gradual change one would expect from evolution?"
Ernst Mayr, What Evolution Is, (New York: Basic Books, 2001), p. 14

“We have long known about stasis and abrupt appearance, but have chosen to fob it off upon an imperfect fossil record.”                     
Gould, Stephen J., “The Paradox of the First Tier: An Agenda for Paleobiology,” Paleobiology, 1985, p. 7.

“In other words, when the assumed evolutionary processes did not match the pattern of fossils that they were supposed to have generated, the pattern was judged to be ‘wrong.’ A circular argument arises: interpret the fossil record in terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn’t it?”
Kemp, Tom S., “A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record,” New Scientist, vol. 108, 1985, p. 66-67.

    George Gaylord Simpson, another leading evolutionist, sees this characteristic in practically the whole range of taxonomic categories:

        “…Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.” [George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press]

The lack of ancestral or intermediate forms between fossil species is not a bizarre peculiarity of early metazoan history. Gaps are general and prevalent throughout the fossil record.
R. A. Raff and T. C. Kaufman, Embryos, Genes and Evolution: The Developmental Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change, Indiana University Press, 1991, p. 34

“Paleontologists just were not seeing the expected changes in their fossils as they pursued them up through the rock record. ... That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. Darwin himself ... prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search ... One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong. ... The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor’s new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin’s predicted pattern, simply looked the other way.”
Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 45-46.

“It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. ... Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and (we) both reject this alternative.”
Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker, W. W. Norton & Company, New York, 1996, p. 229-230)

“In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation.”
(Ridley, Mark, “Who doubts evolution?” New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831.

“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 gradualist accounts of evolution.”
Gould, Stephen J., ‘Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?’ Paleobiology, Vol. 6(1), January 1980, p. 127.

“The true origin of birds is still up in the air.”
Alan Feduccia, New Scientist, 16 December 2000, p. 25.

“In the absence of fossil evidence, paleontologists can say little about the date at which these [sixty-nine living families of Passeriformes] … appeared.”
Stahl, Barbara. 1974. Vertebrate history: Problems in evolution, New York: Dover Publications, Inc. p. 386

“Of all the classes of vertebrates, the birds are least known from their fossil record.”
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. 236.

And That's why scienitists have postulated Punctuated Equilibrium (that there were rapid evolution going on in different periods of history) because the fossil record contradicted their predictions of transitional fossils. Yeah right.

Scientists have tried to replicate their evolution under lab setting but have failed miserably. They reproduced many generations of fruitflies (drosophilia) equivalent to millions of years. They have been experimenting with fruilfiles for decades. What did we get?

"Fruit flies refuse to become anything but fruit flies under any circumstances yet devised."—*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong

"The clear-cut mutants of Drosophila, with which so much of the classical research in genetics were done, are almost without exception inferior to wild-type flies in viability, fertility, longevity."—*Theodosius Dobzhansky, Heredity and the Nature of Man (1964), p. 126.

"Most mutants which arise in any organism are more or less disadvantageous to their possessors. The classical mutants obtained in Drosophila usually show deterioration, breakdown, or disappearance of some organs. Mutants are known which diminish the quantity or destroy the pigment in the eyes, and in the body reduce the wings, eyes, bristles, legs. Many mutants are, in fact lethal to their possessors. Mutants which equal the normal fly in vigor are a minority, and mutants that would make a major improvement of the normal organization in the normal environments are unknown."—*Theodosius Dobzhansky, Evolution, Genetics, and Man

Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all known mutant genes are harmful. For mutations are a necessary part of the process of evolution. How can a good effect-evolution to higher forms of life-result from mutations practically all of which are harmful? - Warren Weaver et al., "Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation", Science, vol. 123

"Take the example of fruit flies (Drosophila). Morgan, Goldschmidt, Muller, and other geneticists have subjected generations of fruit flies to extreme conditions of heat, cold, light, dark, and treatment by chemicals and radiation. All sorts of mutations, practically all trivial or positively deleterious, have been produced. Man-made evolution? Not really: Few of the geneticists' monsters could have survived outside the bottles they were bred in. In practice mutants die, are sterile, or tend to revert to the wild type."—*Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 70.

Yep, still a fruitfly, albeit a weaker kind.

Evolution - the story that you evolved from goo and evolved to you by the way of the zoo, doesn't hold up under the scientific method.

Hit me up when real, hard scientific evidence is produced. I'm willing to look at it with an open mind.

Another thing that totally destroys the evolution story (to me at least) are "living fossils" and amber fossils.

Living and amber fossils doesn't give credence to the idea that all life evolved from a common ancestor.

The story about humans rapidly evolved from some ape ancestor in just
5-7 million years (which requires drastic anatomical, biochemical,
physiological etc. changes is ridiculous. The common answer I receive on this is something of the effect of "because they just so happen to be increased
competition." I call this utter dog poo. That's really one weak cop-out to explain it away.

There are thousands of organisms, some even supposedly 140+ million years, that are virtually the same. You would think all those supposed meteor impacts, ice ages, genetic mutations, volcanic eruptions etc. etc., they would have evolved as much as humans supposedly evolved in the last 7 million years or so. But nope according to the evolutionists.

Some examples of organisms that supposedly said no to Evolution even after millions and millions and millions and millions of years:

Peripatopsis: South Africa "endless-walk type of family Onychophora. This creature has remained unchanged since the beginning of the Cambrian period. With more than 500 million years of stability. Therefore, peripatopsis conveniently votes no for evolution.

Lingula: Commonly called the lampshell because it's unusual shape, is a kind of Lingula brachiopods. No fossils or lead away the lingula. This creature has unchanged since the Silurian period, 435 million years. Lingula conveniently votes no to evolution.

Neopilina and Nucula: Two kinds of marine animals both have retained the same manner as their ancestors had more than 400 million years. They also vote no for evolution.

Pyenogonum: A kind of fifty marine species which resemble spiders. They have not changed since 350 million years. These troublemakers vote no for Devonian evolution.

Hutchinsoniella: A bottom-dwelling marine genus of the family
cephocardia remained constant at 340 million years. Another vote for no change.

Liphistius spiders hatch. Their ancestors are unknown. The first fossil remains were found in the Permian period 275 million years ago. Trapdoor spiders then were very similar to spiders hatch now. A wolf spider preserved in amber from the Eocene, 55 million years, is identical to the species of modern times. Again, we find creatures that appear suddenly in great shape and stay the same at present. With bacteria, lampshells, and marine animals, spiders vote no to evolution.


Nautilus: A kind of shellfish which has defied evolution 270 million years. One more vote for no change.

Anaspids: a kind of sectoral water bugs and Limulus: The horseshoe
crab fossils from both 250 million years. Neither has changed over the
centuries. Again, two more vote against evolution.

Latimeria chalumnae: A coelacanth, a species of ray-finned fishes glans remained unchanged for 200 million years. No fossils or lead away of Latimeria. This voice Triassic surviving prohibition period of evolution.

Entemnotrochus: Another type of marine animals that have no
ancestors known. It has a fossil record dating back 180 million years.
They have not changed. Entemnotrochus votes no to evolution.

Ornithorhynchus anatinus: duck-billed platypus has remained unchanged for 160 million years. They vote not to evolution.

Sphenodon punctatus: Tuatara usually called in English. This reptile
has no known ancestors and descendants do not know. And showed little
change for 140 million years since the late Jurassic. He voted no to
change too.

Leiopelma: An archaic frog of the genus in New Zealand. They are considered living fossils from the Cretaceous period. For 135 million years these frogs have resisted change. Again, no evolution. Therefore, votes Leiopelma no to evolution.

Apteryx Genre kiwi, a flightless bird. Their fossil date from the Cretaceous period 95 million years. The bird has not changed. Apteryx votes no to evolution.

Lepisosteus: Garfish; Lanthanotus boorneenish: A family of lizards of moderate size, and Didelphis: Opossums are all represented in the fossil record 70 million years ago. They have not changed. Gar, lizards, possums and all vote no to evolution.

Cheroptera: Bats. Again, we see creatures make a sudden appearancein the form we know them today. The oldest known bat, 50 million years.is indistinguishable from modern bats. We have a continuous fossil record of these animals since the beginning of the Eocene period. No sign of change and their ancestors are unknown. Bats vote no to evolution.

Insects: Ants, mites and aphids have been captured a yellow ooze together in 35 million years. Their appearances have not changed. Insofar as evolution goes, all three insects have stalled since. Where are the effects of mutations and natural selection? For 35 million years these forces have somehow bypassed the ants, mites and aphids. instead of a gradual change, there are three compelling examples of long-term stability. Ants, aphids, mites and all vote no to evolution.

Tupaia: Treeshrews; ferox Crytoprocta: Mongoose, and Dicerorhinus sumatrensis: Rhinoceros all fossil records of 30 million years. No significant changes occurred. All three did not vote for evolution.

Tipirus: Tapirs look the same as their 25 million year old ancestors. Also vote no to evolution.

Source: http://www.articlesbase.com/science-articles/fossils-vote-on-evolution-169225.html

How convenient a lot of these organisms didn't evolve over 100+ million years. "They don't need to evolve" = a cheap cop-out that only dogmatic evolutionists would buy.

Here is an interesting video on amber fossils. Enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6rvCR5TmkA

You spread more misinformation than a politician

1. Microevolution and Macroevolution describe identical processes, the only difference is time. Pretty sure I addressed this a few times already if you would take a moment and read the responses to you instead of abandoning your arguments each time and running off to form new ones.

2. There are transitional fossils, especially for human ancestry because it's very recent. If you aren't aware of the hominid fossils, you should probably just leave immediately.

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

Fossil record being incomplete is expected. Suggesting otherwise is to admit a very profound ignorance on why any fossils exist in the first place. 

But as I've said before, the bulk of the evidence isn't in fossils. Fossils are for laymen.

1. No. That's your assumption and such an assumption doesn't hold up under rigorous science.

Hey, don't take my word for it. Let's read what evolutionists have said themselves:

"The changes within a population have been termed microevolution, and they can indeed be accepted as a consequence of shifting gene frequencies. Changes above the species level-involving the origin of new species and the establishment of higher taxonomic patterns- are known as macroevolution. The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No." (Lewin, Roger [biochemist, former editor of New Scientist and science writer], "Evolutionary-Theory Under Fire: An historic conference in Chicago challenges the four-decade long dominance of the Modern Synthesis," Science, Vol. 210, 21 November 1980, pp.883-887, p.883).

2. As posted earlier, scientists have admitted to lack of transitional fossils - there are huge gaps. The ones assumed to be are just that: assumed. It's very subjective and that's why there is no consensus. Do you even bother to read the quotes from evolutionists themselves?

Seriously, using Wikipedia as a scientific reference?

Finally, it was expected to find transitional fossils. Apparently you didn't read the quotes from evolutionists. And since the fossil record didn't bear out their prediction they postulated PE to explain it away.