No, you simply gave us the Euglena. Thank you for reminding me of what Time-Life books first gave me back in the 60s. What you forgot to do is dazzle us with spin on how this makes faunal succession and/or the tree of life go away.
As I pointed out two times (see post#1175)- and you did nothing to refute it (nor any other evolutionist here) speciation is not macro-evolution. I also showed you why the warbler example and the salamander example were not even speciation (science itself does not call them separate species), let alone examples of macro-evolution.
You only pointed out that you have your own definition of macroevolution, which you have ignored requests to clarify. This refutes nothing.
This one has not been discussed here, you are welcome to show the proof of it (if you have any).
You know how, every time anyone posts the 29 evidences link you mention that you've been there and done that? Well, the line of evidence that's a new one on you today has been in there all along. How did that happen?
You mean like the mammary glands on dinosaurs that you finally after many posts had to admit there was no disproof of?
Do you give up or not? If you do, I'll tell you what the line of reasoning is, although I can't believe anyone who's really been following this thread or arguing with me about this stuff for over a year can't see it already.
As a framework to what? Atheistic materialism? Or as an explanation of how life began and how man arose? There certainly is a model for how life began, it is called Christianity.
What does the Christianity model tell you about whether or not dinosaurs had teats?
Your dishonesty knows no bounds. I had already posted it twice. The post you responded to said that it was posted in #1175. One of the two previous postings was directed to you. Well, here we go again. I am sure that 200-300 posts from now you will tell the same lie again:
Evolutionists have been trying since Darwin to confuse micro-evolution and macro-evolution. No one disagrees with micro-evolution - the small changes that species make to adapt to their environment. However, the meat of the theory of evolution is not small changes. Indeed, they should not even be called changes at all, they should be called transformations. The theory of evolution posits that step by step through the millenia since life began, species have been transforming themselves into new species each one more complex in their organisms than the previous ones. They posit that fish developed legs and started walking on earth. They posit that reptiles grew wings and became birds. They posit that reptiles again grew mammary glands, became live bearing, and turned themselves into mammals. These transformations by small adaptations were very questionable even when first made. However, genetics and specifically the discovery of DNA has made them quite impossible. Adaptations can occur by single point mutations in a gene. Transformations require not just a totally new gene, but many new genes to be created to support those transformations. The impossibility of this happening by random mutations (and there can be no selection in the creation of a gene since there is no function until the gene is completed) is astronomical. The possibility of thousands of new genes being created for the millions of species living and dead is a total impossibility.
Speciation while a prerequisite to such transformations is not proof of macro-evolution. A species (especially with the loose terminology of evolutionists) can arise (according to evos) by merely being geographically isolated from the rest of the group (guess Robinson Crusoe was not a man anymore because he ended up in a deserted island), it can also (according to the evos) become a new species just because the bird-songs it sings are not recognized for mating by other individuals having all the same characteristics. The classic definition of speciation is the ability to mate and produce offspring. This however is not sufficient because the two species can still have essentially the same characteristics and still not be able to produce offspring with each other. In other words they will still be birds, they will still be fruit flies, they will still be fish. They can be the same in all essential characteristics and still not be able to produce progeny. This is still micro-evolution because the species, neither one, has acquired any new faculties, and has not become more complex in any way.
So to sum up. Macro-evolution is a transformation requiring new genes, more complexity and new faculties. In terms of genetics, it requires at a minimum the creation of more than one new gene. In terms of taxonomy it would require an organism to change into a different genus. ~Genetics part 1 Both dominant and recessive genes have an equal chance of being passed on to the next generation. The passing of genes is random from each allele of each parent regardless of whether a gene is dominant or recessive. The difference between a recessive gene and a dominant gene comes in when it is expressed in the progeny. In a recessive gene you need both genes passed on to the progeny to have the recessive gene for it to be expressed in the individual. In a dominant gene you only need one allele of it in the individual.
Evolutionists have been forced to deal with the problem posed by genetics. That was the reason for the split in evolutionism between Neo-Darwinians, Punk-Eeks(Gould & Eldredge) , and Genetic Drifters (Kirmura). The split over genetic drift (mutations are spread completely at random without the help of selection) came from the realization that it was virtually impossible for small mutations to spread throughout a species because of the halving each time a new progeny is born. Punk-eek also recognizes this and that is why it states that speciation occurs in small isolated populations. It is easier for a gene to spread when individuals in a species are marrying their sisters.