Interesting that you should post the above as proofs of macro-evolution when I have thoroughly destroyed most of them already on this thread right in front of your eyes!
Let's take them one by one:
1) The fossil record and geologic column. Call it "faunal succession."
I gave you an example of a species which defies evolution - Euglena. Your lame answer was:
"But you don't refute the reptile-to-mammal transition with the euglena. It's a bit far down the tree of life to be relevant."
2) Observed instances of speciation.
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.
3) Molecular clock evidence (phylogenetic trees that parallel the preexisting morphological ones).
This one has not been discussed here, you are welcome to show the proof of it (if you have any). However as to morphological trees - which trees are those? Evolutionists keep making new trees all the time and redrawing them each time their trees are proven wrong by real science, so this is a totally phony argument.
4) The ability of the evolutionary model to explain what we see and predict things we should not see.
You mean like the mammary glands on dinosaurs that you finally after many posts had to admit there was no disproof of? Or perhaps you mean the platypus laying eggs or the bat having better sonar than the US navy? What evolutionary model predicted that?
5) The lack of any other model with even a pretense of real information content or usefulness as a framework.
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. Now it may not be an atheistic or a materialistic model, but it is a model. Also, a false model is worse than no model at all. Ptolemaic astronomy, brachyocephalism, phlogiston, alchemy (note the similarity of it to evolution) and many discredited theories hindered scientific advancement far more than if there had been no such theories around.
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?