Well most of the replies were laced with pretty bad language so I'll skip to the interesting parts:

Me: "If bacteria needed to evolve to survive, then why is bacteria still around? And yet everything dies anyway. If an organism MUST evolve for survival purposes, then why do the organisms supposedly inferior at surviving (ex: bacteria) still exist, and yet more evolved species are better at surviving in the same sorts of habitats.

Him: “Organisms must survive to reproduce. That is it. The end. If an organism survives to reproduce, it is fit. Problem solved. So long as older species are still fit, they remain.”

Me: Right, and then therefore there was no need for bacteria to evolve into more complex organisms to fulfill reproduction--they were (supposedly) doing a good enough job already, and the "later" organisms didn't really do any better. The habitats were also (again, supposedly) working well enough for organisms at the time.

In a nutshell, there was no need for macro-evolution.

------

Me: Why should atheists spend their time trying to tear down religion when they think there isn't a God and it doesn't even matter anyway according to their beliefs?

Him: “Because you nuts control the nukes.”

Me: Ah, so you who aren't so nutty should control them instead?

But look at it this way--from your own point of view--clearly, then, Christians have somehow done a far superior job getting their hands on the nukes and on the exact sorts of things that living organisms are merely supposed to do. So how did that happen, pray tell?

----

Yeah, that was fun, fun, fun.  

Same with crocs and sharks.


From the infamous Wikipedia:

They are an ancient lineage, and are believed to have changed little since the time of the dinosaurs. They are believed to be 200 million years old whereas dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago; crocodiles survived great extinction events


Sharks (superorder Selachimorpha) are a type of fish with a full cartilaginous skeleton and a highly streamlined body. The earliest known sharks date from more than 420 million years ago, before the time of the dinosaurs.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

Within the Modern Synthesis school of thought, macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution.[6] Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one – the only difference between them is of time and scale; Ernst W. Mayr stated that "transspecific evolution is nothing but an extrapolation and magnification of the events that take place within populations and species...it is misleading to make a distinction between the causes of micro- and macroevolution”.[6] However, it should be noted that time is not a necessary distinguishing factor – macroevolution can happen without gradual compounding of small changes; whole-genome duplication can result in speciation occurring over a single generation - this is especially common in plants.[7]

Changes in the genes regulating development have also been proposed as being important in producing speciation through large and relatively sudden changes in animals' morphology.[8][9]

The term "macroevolution" frequently arises within the context of the evolution/creation debate, usually used by creationists alleging a significant difference between the evolutionary changes observed in field and laboratory studies and the larger scale macroevolutionary changes that scientists believe to have taken thousands or millions of years to occur. They may accept that evolutionary change is possible within species ("microevolution"), but deny that one species can evolve into another ("macroevolution").[1]

These arguments are rejected by mainstream science, which holds that there is ample evidence that macroevolution has occurred in the past.[5][10] The consensus of the scientific community is that the alleged micro-macro division is an artificial construct made by creationists and does not accurately reflect the actual processes of evolution. [5][11] Evolutionary theory (including macroevolutionary change) remains the dominant scientific paradigm for explaining the origins of Earth's biodiversity. Its occurrence, while controversial with the public at large, is not disputed within the scientific community.[12] While details of macroevolution are continuously studied by the scientific community, the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. common descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data. Predictions of empirical data from the theory of common descent have been so consistent that biologists often refer to it as the "fact of evolution".[13][14]

Nicholas Matzke and Paul R. Gross have accused creationists of using "strategically elastic" definitions of micro- and macroevolution when discussing the topic.[1] The actual definition of macroevolution accepted by scientists is "any change at the species level or above" (phyla, group, etc.) and microevolution is "any change below the level of species." Matzke and Gross state that many creationist critics define macroevolution as something that cannot be attained, as these critics describe any observed evolutionary change as "just microevolution".[1]

Lots of evolutionary modification does not = immortality.   Keep in mind, the earth goes through many changes over time...creatures that were once very "fit" are now extinct.  Most species of animals do not survive long term.  What animals we have present today only represent about 1% of what's been here over time.

Cally raises a good point...in microevolution species adapt to their environment...they "evolve" or "adapt."

In macroevolution, a species changes entirely.  So, what about the evironment caused it to change...and why is the old organism still present...if the old organism is present, then it did not need to adapt, did it?

In Christ,
KP

Animals are not static creatures that just sit in their environment chewing on food and mating, they migrate and roam around.  The earth is also not a static environment, it's quite dynamic.  Environmental pressures can cause all kinds of changes, these changes can lead to new branches in the tree of life.

I have access to nukes?

Man, look out!

But it's still a salamander...

It did not turn into a bird...

Species change, yes, but they do not create different species from their changes.

In Christ,
KP