Ok, since it appears so difficult to answer what I assummed was a simple question, I will rephrase it. you stated
Just like in Mathematics, you have a bell curve. There will always be outliers.
In the same respect, there should always be some outliers for evolution, ie- there should be some individuals / populations that show macro-evolution... This should occur in all species, so it shouldn't be too hard to find at least a handful, or even one. "
So given that you would expect, if evolution was true, to witness it in individuals, what would you regard as evidence if you did witness it i.e. what is it that you are not seeing and would expect to see that makes this evidence that evolution does not occur? Can you give a single example of what, if you observed it in an individual, would make you say 'ok, that does fit with evolution'.
Dude I did answer your original question, which was this... Post 80
"Hi Gilbo, you cut the relevant context out of that quote. My question remains, it is a simple one, Do you believe that evolution should be observable in a an individual?"
I replied with this.... Post 81
"I didn't cut anything relevant out, if you feel otherwise please show me what and how it changes what I quoted yu saying.
Evolution should be observable. Mutations occur in individuals, hence it should be observed on the individual level, as well as the population level as well, (since natural selection only acts on populations) "
You then twist it to whatever you and Ron were saying.... Post 82
"Let's bring this back - in the context of the post I was responding to, Ron claims that because he does not witness macro evolution in individuals, it does not exist. No-one makes any claims that an individual will change species, which is what I was querying. Mutation happens to individuals - cancer is an obvious example, and is observable, but changes in species does not occur in an individual. The question remains... "
To which I replied... Post 83
"You just changed MY response to YOUR question posed to ME, into something between you and Ron. My response incorporates both individuals and populations, please don't change it to fit something else and then ask the question again."
Your original question addressed to ME in post 80. Had nothing to do with your discussion with Ron.. You didn't mention anything about Ron, just if evolution should be observed within individuals.
Now you are postualting an entirely new question as your original question... I am not a fan of word games, please don't take me for a fool.
To answer this NEW question of yours. I'll ask it to you, can YOU show us a case of observed evolution to become a new species, since YOU are the one who believes it occurs. I am not here to give you evidence of something I don't believe in.