It's opinion that there is even evidence to begin with.
It is fact, not opinion.
I've seen your evidence, and so much of it is based on assumptions that it truly is laughable.
I have yet to find a creationist who can point to a single assumption.
I recall asking someone where their evidence was among the evidence they posted, and nothing, it was as if they looked again and saw nothing was really there for the first time.
Here is the evidence:
Creationists have claimed that Macroevolution is not testable. They couldn't be farther from the truth. Here is the test for macroevolution as described clear back in 1965 before we had any real DNA sequence data:
"It will be determined to what extent the phylogenetic tree, as derived from molecular data in complete independence from the results of organismal biology, coincides with the phylogenetic tree constructed on the basis of organismal biology. If the two phylogenetic trees are mostly in agreement with respect to the topology of branching, the best available single proof of the reality of macro-evolution would be furnished. Indeed, only the theory of evolution, combined with the realization that events at any supramolecular level are consistent with molecular events, could reasonably account for such a congruence between lines of evidence obtained independently, namely amino acid sequences of homologous polypeptide chains on the one hand, and the finds of organismal taxonomy and paleontology on the other hand. Besides offering an intellectual satisfaction to some, the advertising of such evidence would of course amount to beating a dead horse. Some beating of dead horses may be ethical, when here and there they display unexpected twitches that look like life."
Emile Zuckerkandl and Linus Pauling,
discussing the possibility of the twin nested hierarchy before the first molecular phylogenies had been made.
(1965) "Evolutionary Divergence and Convergence in Proteins." in
Evolving Genes and Proteins, p. 101.
In short, it was predicted 50 years ago that there should be a match between independent DNA based trees and morphological trees.
So does macroevolution pass that test? Yep, sure does:
"So, how well do phylogenetic trees from morphological studies match the trees made from independent molecular studies? There are over 10^38 different possible ways to arrange the 30 major taxa represented in
Figure 1 into a phylogenetic tree . . . In spite of these odds, the relationships given in Figure 1, as determined from morphological characters, are completely congruent with the relationships determined independently from cytochrome
c molecular studies . . . Speaking quantitatively, independent morphological and molecular measurements such as these have determined the standard phylogenetic tree, as shown in
Figure 1, to better than 38 decimal places. This phenomenal corroboration of universal common descent is referred to as the "twin nested hierarchy". This term is something of a misnomer, however, since there are in reality multiple nested hierarchies, independently determined from many sources of data."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#independent_convergence
For 30 groups there are 100000000000000000000000000000000000000 possible ways to organize them into a tree. There is just 1 tree out of those billions and billions of possible trees that is a perfect match to the predictions made the theory of macroevolution. We see that exact tree.
That is proof beyond any reasonable doubt.
