<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, with the fossil record(as limited as it is) along with the various forms of dating(carbon, uranium, others), and other such materials (insects in amber) offer some hope of proofs. We are limited by the small window we are about to glimpse through, but we can find many things that suggest the accuracy of evolution, and the differences have resulted in the refinement in the theory.</p>
<p>Evolution is fact. It is also theory. That is because we cannot prove a universal negative. So science can only provide us with theories. It does not change the absoluteness of the answer provided. Does gravity exist? No one knows, it’s only a theory. But if it does not exist - it is because there is another force of exactly equal properties. Evolution may or may not exist - but a force of exactly equal properties does.</p>
<p>And how big of a time swath do you need for your proof of macroevolution? Homo habilus to homo erectus to homo sapiens is pretty filled in(and yes I did skip some) and that takes us back 2 million years.</p>
<p>We can trace crocodylidae and various transitions within it back through a couple hundred million years.</p>
<p>So yes, macroevolution can be proven through observation. Not to the same level as microevolution, but there are extensive observations to be made. But considering belief in ‘recent earth’(like the Noah’s ark animal split you refer to) requires the denial of mounds of evidence and scientific methods, and no such denial of evidence is held in reverse(as there is none to be had), I think the understanding should be clear.</p>