need help (proving macro-evolution)

Im doing a Bio. debate for a class and my group is pro evolution.
The main point we're trying to prove is macro-evolution to be true.
any help on evidence we could show or ways to prove it wrong would be nice.
thanks

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

massive topic you all ended up with.how about this:what do you know?

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent is the site he suggests you read over.In addition, RAZD has bumped evolutionary chain for you.

Hi, Wolf. Welcome to EvC.Let me intoduce you to my favorite webpage on the whole internet:29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common DescentIn this website, Dr. Theobald explains what evidence means in science, lists several different lines of evidence in many different fields of biology, and explains why the listed evidence is really evidence. Potential falsifications (important in science) are also explained, and it is pointed out that these falsifications have not been observed.Any other comments or questions are welcome.

---

Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied. -- Otto von Bismarck

The refernce chiroptera gives also links to a criticism of it and a reveiw of that critism.Boy!! is there a lot to learn there! If you can absorb half of that you can kill dead anyone opposing you.

Wolf, here is a short list of concepts (evidence?) that may serve usefully in support of macroevolution:-Cambrian explosion
-Hox genes
-paedomorphosis
-progenesis
-neoteny
-deep homology
-convergence*
-parallelism*
-homoplasy*These concepts can be Googled for their detailed expalantions. I've put asterisks after those that are advanced by the evo-devo folks, who invoke other means besides homological ones to explain macroevolution. (IMO, Gould's "deep homology" removes the need for evo-devo principles.)”Hoot MonEdited by Hoot Mon, : changed subtitle