"Microevolution will always produce macroevolution given time." That there is the logical fallacy of Appeal to future. You cannot base a theory on facts that don't exist, but that YOU assume will, SOMEDAY.
You would be right if we were only hoping to see macro-evolution in the future. However, you have overlooked the fact that we have directly observed macroevolution (speciation) in the present and have good evidence that it happened in the past. So it is not just an appeal to evidence yet to be discovered. It is based on observed evidence.
We know from observation that macroevolution happens and how it happens. And the way it happens is through continuing microevolution over time. This is fact, not hope for future evidence.
In terms of transitional forms, they have found forms but the only ones are God only known how many millions of years old. Radio Carbon dating is one of the most inaccurate measures we have today, so saying that all the evolution happened "millions of years ago" is chronological snobbery, using something that is outdated to attempt to prove a point.
As blayz noted, carbon dating is not used on any but the most recent fossils (e.g. some ice age mammoths), not only because others are too old, but because fully fossilized remains are mineral, and carbon dating can only be used on organic material.
But there are over 40 other radiometric processes that can be used to reliably date rocks and provide estimates of the dates of fossils.
So you will have to come up with another reason for ignoring transitional forms.
Tell me then, what are WE evolving into. We are all transitional forms, what are we turning into?
Evolution is not a matter of predicting the future. In fact, because there is no set goal that evolution is working toward, we cannot predict the future.
What we can do, in part, is reconstruct the past. Had an intelligent observer been around in the days that
Hyracotherium was running around the forests, s/he could not have predicted that its far future descendant would be a horse. But since we have horses and fossil horses and fossil transitional forms, we can reconstruct the history of the evolution of the horse from
Hyracotherium.
Similarly, we can reconstruct our evolutionary past, but not foretell our evolutionary future.
I guess I lost track of the time, the old way to look at evolution was to say that all major evolutionary changes happend millions of years ago.
More likely you never correctly understood the theory or the history. In part, it depends on what you think of as "major" evolutionary changes. Evolution is happening all the time, but since speciation (macroevolution) produces new species which are very similar to the ancestral species, creationists tend to dismiss these ("the fruit flies are still fruit flies").
But this is exactly the same level of evolution you would have seen at any point in history. It is only in retrospect that we can pick out major turning points. Had you observed the origin of
Hyracotherium you would have seen only a few changes in the tooth structure and said it was only a different "breed" from its close cousin. But today, you can easily see the difference in the descendants (horse and rhinoceros). So don't overlook the small changes we can observe directly. They are the source of the big differences that only become evident over a longer period of time. For all we know, major changes are happening now, but they won't be recognizable for a few hundred thousand years.
http://www.thercg.org/books/effai.html
This is a christian site but the subject might interest you. I am interested to see what you have to say to this book. I am not saying that it is right, I am not saying that anything is right, just curious as to what it says to you?
I'll take a look at it, but I don't expect much except misunderstanding and disinformation. Is there any point made there that you find particularly telling?
As I stated before I am open- minded as well as scientific minded about the world around me.
Well, that's a good place to begin. But if you are scientific-minded, it would be good to check out real science and take what is said on anti-science sites, like the one in your link, with a big grain of salt.
Have you ever checked out this site?
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
Give it a whirl, and if you have questions, I'd be happy to try and deal with them.
In terms of evolution V. creationalism I personally have no side. I believe in God and connot say if he created everything at differing strategic times, of if he just set forth laws and let things go under his watch.
I'm a Christian too and have no problems with evolution from a Christian perspective.
Trying to naturalisticly prove the supernatural is still hard to do, thats why I don't do it.
In fact, it is impossible and should not be tried. When it comes to the supernatural we have to rely on faith, not evidence.
I just have a hard time putting my faith into a theory...
Well, don't. When it comes to science we rely on evidence, not faith. You need to do two things: 1) learn what the theory of evolution really says (and does not say), and 2) examine the evidence to see if it really supports the theory.
But don't, absolutely don't, take any scientific theory on faith.
...that states that we are all transitional forms that will evolve into something someday, but we don't know what of when.
As I say, you need to unlearn some things you think you know about the theory of evolution. When you have a better grasp of evolution, a lot of your problems with it will disappear.
We have already given it over 150 years and have not really come to anything conclusive other than if you can leave a lot of offspring then they will magicaly transform into a new species.
Actually, we have come to many conclusions and even direct observation of new species. And there is nothing magical about it. The process is well understood.
I find that creationists typically concentrate on the history (real and imagined, past and projected) of evolution. But the heart of the theory is not about the history of evolution. It is about the process of evolution: how does evolution happen at all. The process of evolution is not often discussed on anti-science sites, and when it is, it is usually discussed very badly. But if you learn the process, then the history is more understandable.
It seems that species needs to be redifined by the worlds new popular belief.
Actually, it was redefined about 200 years ago when Linnaeus created the binomial nomenclature scientists use to name species. Non-scientists tend to equate "species" with common names like "frog", "fly", "rose" etc. So, when they think of evolution they think in terms of a cat becoming a dog.
But to scientists, almost everything with a common name is not one species, but several. In fact, it can be several thousand. There are over 3,000 species of frogs to take one example. In sexually reproducing creatures, what defines a species is whether or not it can and will freely interbreed with others in the population. Often, two closely related species that hardly look any different at all, will not freely interbreed with another. So by scientific standards they are different species.
A species is any given creature with any given "mutation" (now synonmyous with trait.) Thus making millions upon millions of species because everything is different.
Not quite. First "mutation" is not synonymous with "trait". A mutation is a genetic change. A trait is a measurable characteristic of a whole organism. A good number of genetic changes have no effect on the traits of an organism. So you can get differences in DNA without differences in individuals.
Of course, when you do get a change in characteristic traits, that is also due to genetic change. These are the ones that make for evolution. But technically, a mutation is not synonymous to "trait" since you can have one without the other.
Secondly, it takes more than mutations to make a new species. Mutations create variations in a species. They create the differences we see from one individual to another. But, as you know, you can have a lot of variation in a population without the population breaking up into different species.
The key idea that separates one species from another is reproductive isolation. We call it a new species when it no longer reproduces with another population of the same origin, even when given the opportunity to do so.
This still makes for a lot more species than you would guess from common names, but it is not just a matter of mutations or different traits.
