I could've sworn I already replied to Elyse's second-to-last post. O_o Ah well. *forgets about it*

Anyway:

No, we need to see a species change though, it doesn't have to be a fish/dog transformation. Any type of noticeable change would give some evidence for the possibility of macro-evolution, but would not imply that we started from a single cell.
Give me a break. We have witnessed speciation. What have Elyse and I been talking about the past several posts?
It's also really really common sense, once you think about it. Take this hypothetical situation:

Ok, you have population of deer in a certain enviroment. However, after a long drought there's a sudden shortage of food. Some of the deer migrate away to a different enviroment to find more food, so there's no two populations in two distinct enviroments. They adapt to those enviroments differently. One population may start being nocturnal to avoid pretadors, while in the other only the long-antlered deer survive because only they can knock food from trees. So you then have one population who turned nocturnal, and another that's solely long-antlered. The two cannot interbreed because they are awake at different times. Speciation(a very common form).

Yes, I know mutations occur, but that is not real evidence to show macro-evolution occured in the past.
Genetic mutations have always been possible by the properties of DNA and RNA themselves. They have numerous safety-checks, and they're about 99% foolproof. But less than 1% of the time, something screws up. Denying the fact that there were mutations in the past with the argument that there's not pictures of it is naive.

The fossil record only seems to indicate that different species appeared on the land, it doesn't tell us how they appeared there.
Yes, but using the fossil record you can see the similarities of certain species and how they changed over time.

As I've said before, this gives the same amount of evidence for both sides. (or more for creation)
Hardly. The massive pre-Cambrian explosion of speciation occured just after the atmosphere became oxygenated(is that a word? xD). This "coincidence" gives far more evidence for evolution.

Macro-Evolution (starting from one cell in particular) has no possible tests to show it's validity unless we could either travel back in time or view the past.
Have you ever heard of Mendel? He basically proved genetic drift. I don't understand how you can support micro-evolution, yet argue against macro-evolution. One leads naturally to the other.