[quote=dejayou30]If transition from species to species has never been observed, how do you explain the fossil evidence that tracks the exact process? (Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ)

Have you read that article? There is no fossil evidence that tracks the exact process of evolution. Instead, there are many examples of similarities between supposed links, but no evidence that one evolved into another.

The supposed "difference" between micro-evolution and macro-evolution is a farce put forth by creationists. Both micro and macro evolution work on the same principles, the only difference is time. To say that micro evolution is possible and macro is not, is like saying it is possible to walk to the end of your block, but it is not possible to walk to Chicago. One just takes longer than the other.
Nonsense. Micro is another way of saying life forms adapt to their environment within their designed limits. Some examples are numerous breeds of dogs, cats, roses, etc. But a cat never became a dog, a rose never became a cucumber, etc. Macro is the notion that is possible, given enough time and the right conditions. Such changes from one kind to another has never been observed or made to happen in the lab.

Please learn something about evolution if you really want to try to refute it, and quit posting your pseudoscience lies and bullshit here. There are millions of transitional forms that map the transition from birds to reptiles to mammals if you would close the Bible and look elsewhere for your information.
Where are those millions of transitional forms? Where is one? When did I ever refer to the Bible in sharing information disproving evolution?

Also, the Cambrian explosion was not an appearance of all animal groups. There were no dogs, bunnies, cats, horses, etc. in the Cambrian explosion. Please learn real information instead of regurgitating the same tired creationist claims that have already been debunked by credible sources.
You are in denial and pathetically deceived.In the first place, objective paleontologists concede that one??s interpretation of the fossil record will invariably be influenced by one??s presuppositions (in the case of the evolutionists, the presumption that evolution has taken place), and that everything must therefore be forced to somehow fit into that framework. This has been precisely the observation of Ronald West:

??Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.? [Ronald R. West (evolutionist), ??Paleontology and Uniformitariansim.? Compass, Vol. 45 (May 1968), p. 216.]

Steven Stanley, highly-respected authority from Johns Hopkins, has this to say on the lack of a transitional fossil record??where it matters most, between genera and higher taxa (in other words, immediately above the [often arbitrarily and subjectively defined] species level and upwards):

??Established species are evolving so slowly that major transitions between genera and higher taxa must be occurring within small rapidly evolving populations that leave NO LEGIBLE FOSSIL RECORD.? [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution and the Fossil Record, Vol. 36, No. 3, 1986, p. 460.]

If that weren??t enough to raise some doubts, Stanley, an affirmed evolutionist, is also objective enough to point out:

??The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid.? [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.]

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, 1953 p. 360.]

David Kitts acknowledges the problem and reiterates the subjectivity with which the fossil record is viewed:

??Few paleontologists have, I think, ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. The fossil record doesn??t even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories, and special creationist theories, and even ahistorical theories.? [David B. Kitts (evolutionist), "Search for the Holy Transformation," Paleobiology, Vol. 5 (Summer 1979), pp. 353-354.]

E. R. Leach offers no help, observing only that:

??Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so.? [E.R. Leach (evolutionist); Nature 293:19, 1981]

Among the most well-known proponents of evolution (and a fierce opponent of Creationism), even Steven Jay Gould admits:

??At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the ??official? position of most Western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Baupläne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count).? [S.J. Gould & Niles Eldredge (evolutionists); Paleobiology 3:147, 1977]

??The extreme rarity of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontology ... The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ??fully formed.??? [S.J. Gould (evolutionist); Natural History 86:14 (1977)]

[It seems a bit ironic that Isaak also quotes Gould alluding in 1994 to ??several? superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences????more than enough? (according to Gould) to convince any fair-minded skeptic. Are we to understand that it was during the 17 years between 1977 and 1994 these ??superb examples? were discovered (and if so, one wonders exactly which ones they were)? Or sometime during that period did Gould simply change his mind, deciding to dispute the findings of West, Stanley, Kitts, Leach and others (including himself!)? The only remaining explanation??not unheard of among evolutionists??would be a mild case of schizophrenic thinking.]

In spite of the agreement among many prominent evolutionist leaders that the fossil record does little to provide evidence of evolutionary transition, the likes of Mark Isaak somehow feel justified in declaring that, ??Paleontology has progressed a bit since Origin of Species was published, uncovering thousands of transitional fossils ... there are still many instances where excellent sequences of transitional fossils exist.?

What a complete contradiction to both the above leading evolutionists?? own words, and the actual fossil record itself! If Isaak??s claims were true, why would the leading authorities of evolutionary thought so plainly disagree with this ??spokesperson??

Isaak even goes so far as to claim that, ??notable examples are the transitions from reptile to mammal, from land animal to early whale, and from early ape to human.? Yet these same alleged ??transitional sequences? remain no less equivocal and transitory (i.e., subject to continual dispute and re-evaluation among the ??experts?) than any other. Isaak declares them ??notable examples,? apparently based on his personal confidence more than on any tangible, empirical data.

One well-documented treatment of this subject (replacing evolutionary dogma with objective, critical evaluation) may be found in Dr. Duane Gish??s recently updated book:

Gish, D. Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No. Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA. 1995. ISBN 0-89051-112-8

Isaak, on the other hand, directs us to the Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ in the talk.origins archive for ??proof? of transitional fossils. A careful perusal of this source is well worthwhile, as it exemplifies the methods used by evolutionary ??spokespersons? to defend their beliefs by blurring the line between dogma and science, touting so much theoretical speculation as if it were unequivocal, empirical data, so as to convince any willing disciple that they can??t possibly be wrong.