Yes, usually one just evolves into another specie over hundred of thousands of years (or longer) and most of the intermediate stages leave no fossil record, but there is an interesting case where space, in addition to time separates two species, and all the intermediate species still exist.
I forget the name of this arctic bird*, but it is not a good flyer - walks a lot as that takes less energy and lets it look for food as it goes. It is found mainly above the arctic circle. Those in N. Norway can mate with those of Western Russia; and they can mate with those in central Arctic Russia. Those can mate with the Eastern Russians birds. Those of E. Russia with those of Western Alaska can mate, and they can with those of central Canadian Arctic and they can with Eastern Canadian Arctic birds; but the Eastern Canadian birds can not mate with those of Western Norway!
I.e. the Western Norwegian birds are a different species than the Eastern Canadian birds.
All the intermediates in this evolutionary change to new species still exist! The most genetically similar to the Norwegian birds are those of Western Russia, and the difference in their genes is not great enough to prevent fertile eggs from forming. But as you continue going Eastward around the "top of the globe" these differences accumulate to such a degree that by the time you get to Eastern Canada, nearly all the way around except for inhospitable thick ice covered Greenland, the genetic difference accumulated is too great for fertile eggs to be produced. - I.e. they are two different species.
No one can say exactly where this small, but accumulating genetic change made a new species. Just as no one can say when some dinosaur became a bird. - The change in each generation is too small to be noticable. We don't have fossil records of all the intermediate stages that transformed dinosaurs into birds**, but in the case of these arctic birds ALL the intermediate stage still exist. One could say they evolved over both space and time, but no intermediate stage became extinct.
In other words a case of: "Macro evolution", with ALL the in between "micro evolution" stages still available for examination."
These birds are not
proof of evolution; they just
don't rule out the possibility of evolution- just like they don't rule out the possibility of intelligent design. From an ID perspective, the small transitions between these birds are indicative of a built in flexibility of the original DNA programming, which allows for these relatively minor changes over time.
These transitions are to be expected from an ID perspective
and an evolution perspective.
Proof doesn't have to be witnessed directly or demonstrated in the lab. It can be witnessed indirectly through the fossil record.
Again, same as above. Any proof you believe that you have from the fossil record is simply not so. The fossil record does not show DNA processes, which would be necessary to prove DNA evolution. It does not show direct hereditary connections; it shows only discreet, random examples. The fossil record shows nothing of any real value to the evolution argument, unless your view of evolution is simply "different animals existed in the past".
The problem with your point here leo is that you do not understand the real scientific definition of macroevolution, so you apply your own definition which allows you to reject out of hand all of the real examples of macroevolution that exist and have been provided to you - however when asked (on multiple occasions) to provide us with your own definition of macroevolution so that we may see if there is evidence of it taking place according to your own criteria, you refuse to do so, because (presumably) by doing so you leave yourself open to being proved wrong...
...how about posting in a very precise manner, in detail, giving hypothetical examples; what criteria must be met for your special secret definition of macroevolution to be fulfilled.
In addition provide a fully argued case as to why you feel you should be granted a special case for the the correct definition of macroevolution not to apply to you. (correctly defined, Macroevolution describes change that occurs at or above the level of species)
In evolutionary "science", macroevolution should be defined as a randomly mutated addition of entirely new, fully integrated, functioning DNA code which wasn't present in the ancestors of a given species. So, in order to
prove macroevolution, these criteria must be met:
1) The language of DNA must be fully understood.
2) A DNA record of every single transitional animal must be known, and a chain of heredity must be fully realized. Specifically, the DNA code behind every beneficial mutation must be known.
3) The process by which these random mutations happened must also be known, to rule out deliberate interference from an intelligent source.
So basically, macro evolution will probably never be proven. It's way beyond our capabilities.