Macro-evolution (species changing into another species)
Now if you accept that species can change into another species (ie one species of salamander changing into another species of salamander), then you accept macroevolution.
You asked: You have any species in the process of becoming another species while we speak?
I replied with the salamander example. You answered "salamanders are still amphibeans". Yes that is true, but beside the point. You specifically asked for change from one species to another, not change across higher categories like amphibeans to something else.
When the bird becomes a reptile, then you have proof of Macro evolution.
But you could just shift the goalposts again and claim "but they're still vertebrates"
Oh, you understand very well what we are saying.
Each anti-evolutionist seems to have their own definitions for things, and a different set of things they accept and deny. The anti-evolutionist position shifts from person to person, and even from thread to thread.
No, the evolutionist wants to pretend that micro-evolution is Macro-evolution.
When a fish turns into a Reptile, or a Reptile into a Mammal, then you have Macro-evolution.
Is the Salamander still a reptile?
If so, then evolution that attempts to explain life moving from a single cell to man has not been shown.
And that is the evolution we are talking about. (as you well know)
The “Observed Instances FAQ”
As for the “Observed Instances of Speciation” FAQ (the reading of which is encouraged by this writer), after one goes to the trouble of digesting all the preliminary verbiage, all the “speciation” examples given fall into one of two categories:
“new” species that are “new” to man, but whose “newness” remains equivocal in light of observed genetic “variation” vs. genetic “change” (as discussed above), and/or because a species of unknown age is being observed by man for the first time.
“new” species whose appearance was deliberately and artificially brought about by the efforts of intelligent human manipulation, and whose status as new “species” remain unequivocally consequential to laboratory experiments rather than natural processes.
In neither of the above examples cited by Isaak was the natural (i.e., unaided) generation of a new species accomplished or observed, in which an unequivocally “new” trait was obtained (i.e., new genetic information created) and carried forward within a population of organisms. In other words, these are not examples of macro-evolutionary speciation—they are examples of human discovery and/or genetic manipulation and/or natural genetic recombination. They serve to confirm the observable nature of genetic variation, while saying absolutely nothing in support of Darwinian “macro-evolution,” which postulates not just variations within a type of organism but the emergence of entirely new organisms.
Definitions of “species” and (therefore) “speciation” remain many and varied, and by most modern definitions, certain changes within organism populations do indeed qualify as “speciation events”—yet even after many decades of study, there remains no solid evidence that an increase in both quality and quantity of genetic information (as required for a macro-evolutionary speciation event) has happened or could happen.
http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp