Why ask for evidence if you're just going to dismiss it out of hand when it's presented to you? You want a fossil record showing a clear, sequential evolutionary progression from one species to another? you got it with the horse. You want a 'missing link' transitional form that is half-way between 2 very distinct *orders* of animals (like birds & reptiles), let alone species? You got that with Archaeopteryx. Any "observationist" can clearly see that... so what the fuck more do you want? There IS more evidence of macro-evolution - whale evolution, for example; I just went with those 2 off the top of my head. And those references more than "scratches the surface", it blows a fucking hole right through your hand-waving objections.

And furthermore, I didn't say my proof was "infallible" - that is for religious zealots, not science... but that is the beauty of science, there is no rigidly set "infallible" dogma; it is falsifiable, so if you can provide scientific evidence that disproves the theory, then the theory is proven to be invalid. For example, if you can find a 55 million years old fossil of Equus Caballus (the modern horse), then you would have a valid argument against the current theory of horse evolution. Or if you can find a 150 million year old fossil of a fully modern bird, like a hawk or something, then you would have a valid argument against Archaeopteryx being a transitional form between dinosaurs and birds. However, if all you have is empty rhetoric and weak hand-waving arguments - which is all your post amounts to - then you should keep your ignorant ass out of the debate.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"YOU'RE MESSING WITH THE WRONG GUY!!!" - Neal Page, 'Planes, Trains, and Automobiles'