Depends on what you call a "man." Our particular species (and Neanderthals, which have a common ancestor with us)
Which is what? Maybe they just appeared out of nowhere. There is a huge difference between any homo sapiens and any homo erectus.
evolved from Homo erectus.
Based on what?
The transitions in the past millon years or so are pretty abundant, considering how rarely humans actually fossilize.
OK, I'm going to hold you to this. Show me these abundant transitions. Note: They must be true transitions, showing the gradual change from one to the other.
the first example of directly observed macroevolution was the evolution of a new species of primrose by DeVries early in the last century.
New Species? DeVries discovers a variation in the Evening Primrose (Oenothera lamarcklana). This is the similar to fruit flies, the color changes in Peppered moths, etc. If this is the best example of “macroevolution” that has been observed, than “macroevolution” has never been observed. What we need to see is something like an amphibian becoming a reptile (I mean the whole transition over a period of time).
I don't see any limit. New breeds are constantly being produced. Speciations in mammals takes a long time, but the Faroe Island mouse evolved in a few hundred years, an eyeblink in the Earth's history.
You don't see any limit? With force selective breeding of dogs, we have never seen any result other than a dog. Yet you conclude that, in natural selection, the dog can eventually become a horse. That is the problem that most of us have with evolution, that these types of conclusions are jumped to without any evidence whatsoever.
No. There are phyla for which we have no record until well after the Cambrian, and there are phyla which arose before the Cambrian. The Ediacaran fauna was widespread and varied, and some of those phyla have survived to modern times.
I was referring to animal phyla, sorry for the conclusion.
Natural selection, speciation, ring species, and many other things. Here's a few specific ones:
In therapsid reptiles, (as in all reptiles) the bones in the lower jaw are connected to the ear, and transmitt vibrations from the ground to the "stapes." Over time, we see the bones becoming smaller in these animals, eventually the formation of a second, mammalian jaw joint and the disarticulation of the back bones from the dentary occurs. These small bones then reduce even further in size, but continue to be attached to the stapes, forming the malleus and the incus.
This is a weak connection. Maybe you can explain the evolution from scales to hair (via feathers), and the development of mammary glands. These animals are quite different, despite the similarities in the jaws.
Not long ago, I was surprised and pleased to see that these tiny bones are attached to the jaw of a fetal opossum precisely as they are in the therapisid reptile Thrnaxodon. Later in development, they migrate to the usual mammalian place.
And a little while ago, in the bones of a T-rex, scientists found a little hemoglobin. Injected into a lab animal, it produced antibodies that reacted most strongly with that of a bird, rather than other reptiles. Precisely what evolutionary theory predicts.
How so? Is T-Rex a bird or a reptile? If anything, this discovery shows how different even reptiles are from each other.
There are hundreds of little facts like that, woven into a tough, durable fabric that makes any naysaying pointless. The more one learns, the more facts like this accumulate.
I'm aware of these “accumulated facts” and many others. I'm saying that it is a big jump to go from changes in mice to changes from reptile to bird. It is a jump that you have taken, and naysayer says that the evidence does not support it.