In case there is someone still reading this thread with an interest in real science, I will post one last time.
First, Thunderstick, just about every one of your statements is patently wrong. You are totally confused by the entire idea of evolution and apparently have made up your own theory of what it is so you can disprove it. The Society for the Study of Evolution is, without a doubt, the forefront of the field. Not one person there would agree with anything that you have said about what evolution is, how it is "proved" or any other topic you have touched upon. They meet annually and in conjunction with the American Society of Naturalists and the Society of Systematic Biologists. This coming year's meeting will be 25-29 June 2010 in Portland Oregon.
http://www.evolutionsociety.org/SSE2010/ It might behoove you to go and try to understand what they are talking about before you try to shout them down. You look like Pogo meets Lebron James for a round of one-on-one hoops.
Your understanding of evolution within the taxonomic nomenclature is wrong. Not sorta wrong, but just flat dead wrong. This is clouding your ability to understand what evolution is all about. First, the Phylum,Class, Order, Family Genus, Species system and all its sub and supra parts is a filing system. It is not a description of how evolution happens. It does have some approximation of the history of evolution but it is not produced by evolution. So, one species does not evolve to become a member of another already existing family. That would make the receiving family polyphyletic (having more than one origin). We try to avoid that and wherever we find such ambiguities we refile the species where it is a member of a monophyletic group at that level.
A taxonomic level such as family is simply a convenient folder in which we can place a bunch of species that have a common ancestry. Within that folder, some species may be more closely related to some members than to other members, those related groups within the family are paper-clipped into a nice bundle and the bundle is given a genus designation. However, the degree of relatedness for inclusion in a genus or a family or any other taxonomic designator is strictly arbitrary and means nothing specific other than we strive to have each smaller bundle more closely related within the bundle than to the other bundles in the group.
Now not one single professional biologist in any recognized scientific society will agree with your notion of macro evolution. How you think this stuff up is really remarkable, but it is as fictional as Mother Goose and all those other nursery school fables. So, let�s look at a pathway of evolution. When an ancient, shrew-like species of mammal evolved flight, we ended up with bats. Not mallards. That same ancestral source of bats also evolved in another direction and gave us shrews. These comprise many different species in many different genera and families. But this ancestral shrew-like animal did not make an evolutionary jump to join a pre-existing group of bats. It created a long line of sequential species that eventually became so different from the ancestor that we recognize them as a bat, and this first bat continued to speciate, creating more species of bats � a wholly new group of mammals. Meanwhile some others from that same ancestral mammal were gradually evolving to become today�s shrews, first one new species which sequentially evolves many others which each evolve others and now we have bats and shrews, where before there were neither. And so we put shrews in one group and bats in another and both of these are bundled together as being more similar to themselves than they are to say rodents which had already split off from the ancestral bat/shrew precursor.
In this same way, humans did not evolve from apes, nor them from us. But rather humans and apes evolved from a common species that was neither ape nor human but simply the starting point for the bifurcation of those two groups of species.
As for the evolution of life, it is a big puzzle for sure. And one that certainly is interesting. But it is NOT macro evolution however defined by anyone except you.
Ringman, you are even more confused than TS.
