Depends on your definition. They have undergone macroevolution, at any rate - there are hundreds of different species, with radically different diets, head shapes, sizes, etc. Then you would have proposed a wildly improbable macroevolutionary sequence for just a couple of species, and still have the hundreds of other related species to account for. You would need a hell of an argument, and a ton of evidence that contradicts the current body of evidence on dozens of points. And of course you would be dealing with macroevolution, for all of them. Theories do that, yep - especially the good theories, the valuable ones. Providing an "interpretation" of the data is the major goal of the theorist - it's not easy to do, especially in biology where the data pile is so dauntingly huge and varied. Of course if you don't like what some theory provides, you can always try to come up with a better theory. In the case of Darwinian theory there have been thousands of such attempts, and by some very bright and informed and knowledgable people - but you might be the first to succeed. Go for it. 1) As noted many times now, there are several theories of evolution. I posted the names of two that have proved useful (Lamarckian and Darwinian), you may have found others - which Theory of Evolution are you talking about? 2) If anyone found a reasonable and equivalently supported interpretation of the relevant data that managed to "go against" Darwinian theory they would win Nobel Prizes and get tenure and become famous. Most fossils belonging to extant and common lineages are transitional fossils, if the math guys haven't completely screwed up the probabilities involved. (the only fossils that wouldn't be transitional are the dead ends, which in a densely extant lineage should be proportionately rare). The primate to hominid lineage, the bison lineage in North America, the Equid lineage, have several examples each - and recently you may recall the discovery of yet another transitional fossil in the whale lineage, joining the many and nailing down the already likely artiodactyl origin hypothesis. Since when did DNA evidence become the only "hard evidence"? Fortunately for those demanding DNA evidence and no other, we have such evidence for a long enough time to pick up solid indications of Darwinian evolution even in fossils. And of course we have all the DNA evidence from living beings - that was my example of overwhelming evidence for macroevolution, in that early post you ignored. So the question of the existence of macroevolution has been settled three or four times over, with a half dozen different kinds of evidence. What did you need the DNA from older fossils for?