Maybe it's the wall of text or something, but there's some SERIOUS misinterpretation of words here.
The one that really glared me in the face is Species (and how Species A can become Species B and Species C)
A clarification of "species"
A group of organism is defined as a species when it can successfully mate and reproduce successfully throughout its lineage.
A new species when its descendants can mate with each other successfully throughout its lineage, but cannot mate with its originating species throughout its lineage. A horse and a donkey can mate, producing a mule, but the mule is not a new species as it cannot successfully reproduce at all, even with other mules (they are effectively sterile).
A clarification of "Natural Selection"
Natural Selection represent any pressure (both positive and negative, not just negative) on a given species that causes individuals with certain traits to have increased representation within the population's gene/allele pool. In short, the environment is part of natural selection, don't try to use it separately.
For the love of sanity, do not use wikipedia as reference since they can be edited by anyone, anyone remember the scandal involving catholics on wikipedia at all? It's a good source to get a clue, but not as reference (this is applied school policy in many parts of the world). Peer-reviewed papers are more effective, even magazines like Nature, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, or other peers reviewed science magazines/papers. Even sites like
www.sciencedaily.com is better than wikipedia as they actually credit their source properly.
Here's some answers to some questions that was in the beginning, not 100% it was completely answered.
"Traditional" creature, not fossils, that are alive and well today.
Horseshoe crab, various species of fish (the most known is probably "the living fossil" coelacanths), crocodilia, etc..
As for Evolution vs Intelligent Design, there are a few (emphasis on FEW) creationists scientists (I'm using the term loosely, but I do believe a few of them qualifies as science as they actually use the scientific method as opposed to most that just claims something with non-peer review data and experiments). And macro-evolution isn't a term we really use nowadays, it's more common to call it speciation. The term macro-evolution died off and was resurrected by creationists in their effort to be heard in a scientific forum. Terms like divergence and speciation were more common.
Intelligent Design vs Evolution in Embryonic State
the I.D camp can argue (and have argued) that everything is the result of one giant blueprint. However, it does not explain why certain lineages have their embryos features that are not presented in the offspring or adult form. Human embryos have features of gills, fins, claws, etc... as do other primates. However, embryos from insect lack these features. If it is indeed intelligent design, wouldn't be more accurate that other primate should not have similar irregularities to human in embryonic form (since, they believe humans are "special")? Why have separate blueprints for different creatures if the design is so "intelligent"? Although these feature does not prove definitively that human evolved from fish (and whatever else other features we have), it would at least be plausibly argue that we can diverge into an aquatic species should natural selection take its course. In the case of creationists, they would argue that we would not since "humans were created in god's image". Let me clarify, not all creationists hold this view, however, enough of them view their religious scriptures as "facts" and attempted to use it as such. This is one of the primary reason why creationists are viewed as ignorant and presumptuous by the scientific community at large.
Edit: In adding to Artois' comment, religion have rarely complimented science. Science would have advanced hundreds of years further if it wasn't for the suppression of religion.
