Ah, I see you do not understand the various levels of taxonomy. What you are describing is divergence at a level far above that of species. Cats and dogs, for example, diverge at the family level of taxonomy. As I stated, the time scales required to physically observe such a divergence are much too long, at least with the currently available techniques. Perhaps some day some kind of accelerated evolutionary technique will be available for simple organisms to track such divergence. As it stands, we can only test for species divergence.

Make no mistake, however, the observed instances of speciation are not "microevolution" as you are claiming. Microevolution would be something like the size differences developed between cold and warm dwelling sparrows, the development of different dog breeds, development of dark skin in humans, etc. Actual speciation is generally not microevolution. Take polyploidization, for example. This process will actually result in truly mutually infertile groups, an example of speciation that satisfies the biological species concept definition of a species. This is beyond what you term microevolution. Other known speciation mechanisms exist and it's only a matter of time until we have the ability to observe divergence at a level higher than species.

Ah, I see you too are in the Christianity=myth camp as well.

and i do links. i'm not a big fan of summarizing someone else's work (unless someone asks me of course). things can be misrepresented, misinterpreted, quoted out of context, and a person can't help but to add their own spin on things. i'd rather people see the data for themselves (if they care and have the training to understand and interpret the data. if nothing else they could read the abstract ) and get the author's interpretation of what is happening, not my interpretation of the author's interpretation.

really briefly, the paper i linked reports the sequencing of the nuclear genome of a wooly mammoth. extinct species, no soft tissue. my apologies. i didn't realize i failed to give the 2 sentence summary when i posted the link

So, because the new testament has additional prophecies you choose to believe the Christian Bible over the Hebrew Bible? - which is much older by the way.
You can't use this argument. Doesn't the Christian Bible contain a lot of prophecies that are in the older Hebrew Bible, just as you mentioned above? Once again, how come you choose not to believe the Hebrew Bible? Especially since the age and originality of text seems to matter more to you than the amount of prophecies. How about the older Pagan religions on which Christianity is based?
It's unreasonable to assume that we can find all the necessary fossils, but with the advent of hard-science methodologies, we don't even need the fossils. There is other evidence I mentioned which conclusively proves evolution. Why are you so concerned with the fossils? Among hundreds, that's only 1 little field that investigates evolution.
You don't need prehistoric animals to prove the existence of evolution. Educate yourself on biology and genetics a little more, and then come back to this thread. Also this term that you're using - "macroevolution" - is incorrect. Everything is microevolution stretched over an incredibly long period of time. At some points, there are massive breakthroughs - e.g. opposable thumbs, but they're not 'macroevolution/spontaneous', they originate from slow successive micro-evolutions.
Stop with the fossils man. Palaeontology - as a field of science is very poor at explaining and providing evidence for evolution. There are alternative hard-sciences that prove it conclusively.
Can you provide me with a list of all the scientists (within the fields of biology, biochemistry or genetics) that do not believe in evolution?
Once again, stop with the fossils and have a look at other types of evidence presented. It is unreasonable to assume that we can find the complete collection of fossils for the evolutionary history of any species on earth.

ALTER2EGO:
I challenge you to quote me verbatim where I told you that the Hebrew Bible is not acceptable to me.

I distinctly told you that the Judeo-Christian Bible has BOTH the Hebrew portion of the scriptures (called the "Old Testament") AND the Greek scriptures (called the New Testament), while the Jews only accept the Hebrew portion. Therefore, by definition, the Hebrew portion of the Bible is acceptable to me--whether it's in the Judeo-Christian Bible or in the Jewish Bible.

ALTER2EGO:
True Christianity is not based on pagan religions. Notice that I bolded the words "true Christianity," indicating that there's also apostate or false Christianity.

ALTER2EGO:
The fossils (bones of long-dead animals) is all that survived the centuries in the ground. That's why the gaps in the fossils record are such a death blow to macroevolution theory (the belief that every animal that has ever existed, and humans, evolved from a single ancestor).

There's no soft tissue for scientists to examine and compare with the DNA of todays animals, because skin and flesh has long since disappeared after centuries in the ground. So what do these scientists do? They speculate and opine and write all types of high-sounding words and use phrases like "species transition" and "speciation" to describe variations of the exact same animals that they think would have evolved into something else--except for the gaps in the fossils.

The only thing that would prove macroevolution is bones (fossils)--because that's the only thing that was solid enough to survive thousands of years in the ground. The gaps aka the "missing" bones would have shown how various types or "species" of animals evolved into entirely different creatures (eg. a squirrel evolving into a bat or a whale evolving into a bear). But the problem is that no such bones exist. Not one.

Out of all the animals that ever lived and supposedly evolved into other creatures, not one single bone survived to show how this happened. Even scientists that are pro-evolution have had to reluctantly admit it. Below are several examples of their lamentations over the past 30 years.

1. "Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin's time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. and it is not always clear, in fact it's rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find." (Raup, David M., "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, vol. 50, 1979, p. 23.)

2. "What one actually found was nothing but discontinuities: All species are separated from each other by bridgeless gaps; intermediates between species are not observed . . . The problem was even more serious at the level of the higher categories." (Mayr, E., Animal Species and Evolution, 1982, p. 524.)

3. "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record." (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 189.)

4. "There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways it has become almost unmanageably rich, and discovery is out-pacing integration...The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps." (George, T. Neville, "Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective," Science Progress, vol. 48 January 1960, pp. 1-3.)

5. "Despite the bright promise - that paleontology provides a means of 'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them. The gaps must therefore be a contingent feature of the record." (Kitts, David B., "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," Evolution, vol. 28, 1974, p. 467.)

Please to be defining "true" Christianity in a way that can't be easily altered in the next few years when it is convenient for your position.

A2E: Your point about the fossil record was already refuted. Stop embarrassing yourself.

I like the up to date quotes you use.

Better yet is the site he pulled them all from.

From said website:
Among the esteemed individuals they thank:
OP, if you're interested in actually learning about evolution (and I don't think for a minute you are), you should probably expand your research sphere outside of quote-mining creationist websites.

This is a blatant lie. Are you living in the early 80's?
All of these issues have been addressed over the last 30 years. It seriously seems like you're living in the early 80's. We have the internet now, and there are still people out there that are so misinformed that they're 30 years behind the general population. Amazing.

I've never called anyone a troll before, in fact I'm not really certain what it means, but this account has to be fake.

scientific breakthroughs of early 1980s:

-voyager snaps the first ever high res images of saturn

-the first artificial heart. recipient died in 4 months.

-lithium ion batteries

-atari

come on guys we haven't figured out very much since then

I think the old quote applies in this situation. "He uses the internet as a drunken man uses lamp-posts...for support rather than illumination."

A2E: You're not convincing anyone here. Move along to your next forum, or house, or business.

Theory of Evolution being debated in 'Religion, God, and Theology'. Let's have some Java programming discussion in Folk Dancing forum.

You could point people in the right direction. Oh, java... nevermind then. Ahahahha.