---
... 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution.
---
I've read it. The evidences are extremely weak considering the lack of any transitional forms in the fossil record.
It's kind of like arguing for the existence of ether (a once-believed in medium to propagate light waves through space) by citing all the traits waves have in common, how other waves propagate and the general behavior of waves while completely ignoring the utter and complete lack of the actual detection of ether itself in any observation or experiment.
Stop it. Making sense is not allowed. This is a religious thing for them. It takes faith lol
I believe your side typically claim that there is no evidence. Now you produce the funny second sentence above, the first part of which is the unsupported assertion that the evidences are "weak," the second part of which (intended in support of the first part?) is a simple repetition of the mantra that such things do not exist at all. That is to say, you don't even make sense here. The stuff exists. You have a very funny way of dealing with that.
Most of the 200 or more species cited in that link were discovered after Darwin published. That is, his theory predicted that such things should have existed and, notwithstanding "the imperfections of the geologic record," at least some of them ought to turn up. They have turned up in abundance. That this has happened is in fact a fulfillment of the predictions of the theory, but creationists are allowed to call evidence a lack of evidence, a fulfillment a failure. They are allowed to lie. This is not a good testimony to the effects of faith in things unseen.