where was the transition within fossil record?? [Stalled: randman]

If you have recieved this impression you are mistaken. There is significant, abundant fossil evidence to prove macroevolution and the accuracy of the evolutionary account.

It's all around you, just as it was all around Darwin. If there's no evolution between species, then where are all the new species coming from?

Any time that you conclude that an animal is a cat because it looks like other cats; any time that you cracked open a field guide to find out what mushrooms were safe to eat; any time that you remarked on a striking family resemblance between two of your relatives, you've proved the fundamental accuracy of inferring shared ancestry from shared characteristics.Taxonomic categorization had been practiced for hundreds of years prior to the development of evolutionary models. It's the basis of the time-honored Linnean system of classification. And, predictably, you've only decided to raise an objection now that its a threat to your intellectually vapid spirituality.

Redundancy. We already have terms to describe these phenomena: "adaptation" and "speciation." What do we need the micro/macro construction for, except as a smokescreen for creationists to confuse the issue?Rather than engage in an enormous effort of word reclaimation to salvage the micro/macro terms, lets employ terms that creationists haven't polluted. My suspicion is that any biologist you hear employing the macro/micro terms is, like most of them, fairly well-insulated from creationist activity. If they knew how these terms were employed against them I suspect they'd drop them immediately.