5. What actual proof is there that macro-evolution is true?
Micro- and macro-evolution are very misleading terms--they imply a difference which really doesn't exist. Evolution is the result of genetic mutation. We all know that mutations happen. We've all seen their consequences or heard of them. Mutations can be helpful, neutral or harmful to the species. Harmful mutations typically don't spread--they result in non-viable, helpless or sterile offspring. Helpful mutations do spread and result in offspring that fill new ecological niches, or achieve new, valuable potential. And neutral mutations create variation--different eye-color, hair-color etc.
We see examples of bird species mutating to fill ecological niches in isolated communities--deserted islands for example. After a while, birds on one mutational branch are seen to stop mating with those on another--perhaps it's hard for the larger, 3-foot-wingspan bird to mate with its 3-inch-wingspan relative. Statistically speaking, a mutation will eventually arise in the smaller birds (for example) that is beneficial to them and fatal to their larger relatives. Once this mutation has spread, the two branches are no longer genetically able to produce offspring together and speciation has occurred.
There was no different micro- and macro-evolution taking place in this scenario--just the same process, taking place in the same way, eventually leading to an inevitable conclusion, in a process called evolution.
I should point out, the above argument is a serious over-simplification. Like I said before, I'm not a geneticist. I haven't taken the necessary courses the fully understand the process, but this is as much as I understand of it.