5. What actual proof is there that macro-evolution is true?
Scientific theories are never "true." They are valid if they adequately and consistently describe and predict the data. They are useful if they successfully direct further research and practical application. Evolution passes both these tests. But if it were "true" there would be nothing more to learn. Scientists continually try to learn more, to push the boundaries, and are already looking into the importance of memes and gene switching mechanisms. This doesn't make evolution false; it makes it a valuable theory that's displaying it's value by pushing the research forwards.
Similarly, Newton's laws of motion, on which much of modern technology is built, are not "true," but they are wonderfully valid and useful when applied to earth-scale speeds and distances, and it would undoubtedly be foolish to try teaching Einstein's theory of relativity to anyone who didn't first understand Newton's laws.
(Tomorrow's post will deal with why macro-evolution is a misleading term. Then I'll try to answer the rephrased question...)