Transitional fossils not proof of evolution?

If the above is not 'macroevolution' as I understand it, then I have missed the train completely. I am sure that others have also impressed upon you similar examples of such macroevolutionary changes, as well as the transitional forms.I am sure that someone has explained the idea of microveolutionary steps leading to macroevolutionary changes, but perhaps not. What we see in the fossil record, are the snapshots of microevolution that highlight the macroevolutionary changes in populations over time. It's like the pictures your parents might have taken of you throughout your childhood. A snapshot record of your life, that may have missed otherwise important developmental steps but given you an overall picture of how you grew. The fossil record is just such an album of the development of life on Earth, except we're not the parents and we don't know all the answers to how it happened. We have a pretty good idea, but we're still missing some of the "birthday party" pictures that could help us elucidate the past. No, it just begs the question of how the alien life-forms evolved. The question is now, "What is their evolutionary past?" And this still doesn't intrude upon or trump evolutionary theory. Whether it is panspermia or abiogenesis, evolution happened, and that is what the ToE is all about. I don't believe I can subscribe to your version of what science does. To me, science is a search for understanding. "Truth" as I understand your meaning, is a philosophical concept that might mean "proven" and in science nothing is proven.

In my best Homer impersonation:"DOH!"(the sad thing is that I was so intent on showing evidence of macroevolution I didn't bother on checking what species they were. It sure is a great example of the power of artificial selection though. )