I had a few minutes before I had to leave so I have chosen to respond in a small way. One of the major problems I see in a debate of this sort is actually one of an extremely limited perception coupled with preconceptional bias that favors a personal opinion and belief rather than an established fact. IMO, what you may perceive and accept as evidence of macroevolution is in actuality a personal opinion that must be based upon your own personal beliefs and preconceptions.
While we are able to see microevolutionary changes within a single lifetime, visual observance of macroevolutionary changes is not possible. Even proponents of macroevolution will admit this. Therefore, macroevolutionists must rely upon interpretations, perceptions, and preconceptions of the so-called available evidence. Preconceptions and perceptions aside, their interpretations of the evidence may be totally erroneous and due to the lack of any actual visual confirmation of the macroevolutionary transformation itself, cannot be accepted as true and undeniable evidence.
I have seen nothing to date that would convince me that macroevolution is not a myth. One analogy that I can give would be the christian myth of noah's ark. Were we to actually find this ark, this would still not be concrete evidence of the story as told in the blble. We may have the visual evidence that the ark actually existed but this would not be enough to confirm the biblical account of noah and the ark beyond any and all reasonable doubt.
Were simple visual samples enough to fully confirm any myth or story was actual truth then the simple fact that Israel was born in a day would be enough proof of the authenticity of the biblical account that says this would happen. I see no macroevolutionists proclaiming the truth of the bible, or even the truth of this particular prophecy simply based upon this visible and verifiable historical truth. We are still left with a personal interpretation of what we believe we see, and it remains a belief that is based heavily upon personal bias.
There may be many myths that will some day be proven to be fact but I truly doubt that the myth of macroevolution will ever be included in that group short of actual visual observance of macroevolutionary change, which any macroevolutionist will admit is not possible given the immense lengths of time required and the infinitesimal level of change over a given period of time much longer than the human lifespan.
Because of this reality, the need for interpretation is required and as I have already stated, interpretation of evidence is not enough. If it were, none of us could, in all honesty, doubt the validity of much of the bible, many of its myths and legends, or the existance of the one true god these christians proclaim.
One could read Fox's book of martyrs, a book that is filled with historically accurate and verifiable accounts of the persecution of early christians and reach the conclusion that these people were undeniably convinced of what they believed. Would their belief, their willingness to suffer what they suffered be enough to convince you of the reality of their god? I doubt it, but they believed and were willing to die proclaiming that belief.
Somehow I doubt any that macroevolutionist will ever have that level of commitment to their own beliefs. I am quite sure that they would be willing to deny their belief in macroevolution and do it in a New York minute. There is a drastic difference between someone who simply accepts something and someone who not only believes but is willing to remain faithful to that belief even under penalty of torture and death.
While one may not believe what these christians believe, one cannot deny that their commitment to their belief is based upon something far greater than mere visual evidence. Would that we all could acheive that level of commitment to our own personal beliefs.
The theory of evolution is a viable theory, absent the myth of macroevolution.
Once the myth of macroevolution is included, the viability of the theory of evolution vanishes as it slowly evolves into just another example of an implausible story,
nestled amongst the numerous fairytale's of our youth.-----DarkStar