Such as that produced by the gene duplication observed in those monkeys a few weeks back?
more complexity
Such as the development of earbones revealed in the fossil record of mammals?
and new faculties.
Such as the development of flight revealed in the fossil record of birds?
The gene duplication mentioned there was not macro-evolution, here's why:
1. the gene already existed so there is no proof that duplication ever happened.
2. the gene remained the same size. You need different size genes for new faculties.
3. the "new" gene coded for a very similar function. It enabled the better consumption of a protein similar to the one the other gene was coding for.
Such as the development of earbones revealed in the fossil record of mammals?
You folk really have an ear-bone fetish (at least mine with the mammary glands is more understandable)! There is no proof of the development of ear bones by gradual evolution, none at all. If I am wrong, give the proof. Just the mere existence of ear bones does not show that they evolved. See this is the problem with most of the arguments of evolutionists - you say that if it exists it is proof of evolution. No it is not. You have to prove that it evolved gradually, that species evolved gradually. There is hardly any proof of such (if any) in the fossil record. If evolution was indeed true there should be tons of evidence in the fossil record of species transforming themselves into other species.
"and new faculties.
Such as the development of flight revealed in the fossil record of birds?"
See my response above. Certainly no such proof has been given on this thread. And no archaeopteryx is not the progenitor of birds. Even evolutionist scientists have admitted that. In fact archaeopteryx - a feathered dinosaur with no progenitors and no descendants is more a proof of creationism than of evolution.