Macro Evolution is supported by evidence.

No fossil is evidence for evolution because you can't prove that fossilized animal had babies, never mind babies different than its self, which is something that has never been observed.This argument is invalid. If a species cannot reproduce (produce babies, lay eggs, split into more, etc.) then it would be soon extinct, and therefore we won't see much fossils at all, which is not remotely the case.[1] - There are NO "vestigial" structures. "Vestigial Organs" Are Fully FunctionalIt is unnecessary for vestiges to lack functions, they are still vestiges. Vestiges do not have to lack functions to be proof for evolution.[2] Not all vestiges lack functions. "Rudimentary organs, on the other hand, are either quite useless, such as teeth which never cut through the gums, or almost useless, such as the wings of an ostrich, which serve merely as sails." -Charles Darwin1.The human tailbone is the anchor point for nine little muscles needed to support the colon, anchor the end of the spinal column, and perform several other functions.The source was not talking about that, which is not a true tail. They were talking about true human tails, which has rarely been observed. [3]2.The whale does not have a pelvis. Those bones are anchor points for special muscles used during reproduction. The bones of the male whales differ from those of the female. Furthermore, there is no fossil evidence for loss of legs in whales.Irrelevent, I never said whales have pelvises, I was really talking about whales with hindlimbs.3.The spurs on the abdomen of some snakes are also used in mating. We had a fifteen-and-a-half-foot python snake skin at the ministry. You could see the two little half-inch claws; each is attached to a tine bone about two inches long. They are not remnants of legs. 4.The human appendix serves as a part of the immune system today. It"s true that you can live without it. So what? You can live without both of your legs, arms, ears, and eyes as well. That doesn"t prove you don"t need them! Removal of the appendix causes the rest of the immune system to work harder, that"s all. People without their appendix are more likely to live shorter lives and catch more diseases.Still irrelevent, vestiges do not need to be not functional to be evidence for evolution, this argument is invalid. [2]I'm not sure why an ostrich has little wings but I'm sure he needs them or God would not have DESIGNED it that way.This is a bare assertion based on the assumption that creationism is true which is irrelevent as creation can be corret along with MACRO-evolution.This is evidence that all creatures were CREATED and DESIGNED. evolution can do NOTHING except. "working with what is already there" If Macro evolution is supported by evidence it is NOT this "evidence" as I have successfully shown.No, what I meant is that evolution can still create better organisms (new species=macro-evolution) JUST by working with what is already there. Even if evolution can only work with what is already there, macro-evolution is still possible. Con has taken my quote out of context (quote mining) to make it seem to "agree" with his side. That is not a successfull argument. In fact, it is not even an argument at all. Actual quote in context, it meant something very different than what my opponet thinks it meant."Creationists claim that evolution cannot make organisms better and better because the genome cannot create more genes and can only work with what is already there. However, that is false, because the size of the Amoeba dubia genome (not an intellegent creature) is 670,000,000,000 base pairs , while humans have 2,900,000,000. [6] Humans have a smaller genome, but are more evolved and intellegent than the Amoeba. This means that evolution can still create better organisms just by working with what is already there. Another piece of evidence for evolution."Note that it is just by, not only can.My opponent has taken my quote out of context. That is bad conduct."Their [Creationists'] favorite sport is stringing together quotations, carefully and sometimes expertly taken out of context, to show that nothing is really established or agreed upon among evolutionists. Some of my colleagues and myself have been amused and amazed to read ourselves quoted in a way showing that we are really antievolutionists under the skin." -Theodosius Dobzansky[4] [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://www.talkorigins.org...[3]http://www.talkorigins.org...[4]http://en.wikipedia.org...