Since new phyla have arisen on Earth only about 35 times in several billion years, your insistence that you won't accept anything else as evidence until you can see a new phylum arise in your lifetime is either incredibly ignorant, or incredibly disingenuous. Which is it, so I'll know how better to address your posts in the future?
Then we are talking evolution.
Is it actually your contention that *only* the rise of a new phylum would be "evolution"? I repeat the question I asked you in the first part of this post.
No, once again you confuse the matter by postulating a difference where there is no difference. Large-scale evolution is just small-scale evolution accumulated over time until the differences combine to change enough of the species that people go, "wow, that's pretty different".
There is absolutely no distinction between "microevolution" and "macroevolution", except to the creationists who are forced to admit the existence of evolution but want to claim that it can "only" happen in small amounts -- without ever explaining what, exactly, they think would halt the accumulation of changes before they add up to large changes.
Before you start waving your hands, remember that there are fossil sequences which, when arranged chronologically, clearly map out small stepwise changes which, when comparing the final part of the sequence with the first part, add up to the rise of whole new groups of animals which did not previously exist.