What is some emperical evidence for molecules-to-macro evolution?

In this case it sounds like your best answer would be to simply state that you are not an evolutionary biologist, but you see no reason to doubt the opinions of the scientists that do study the subject.

You may well be told that the scientists are lying and that there is no evidence for evolution, in which case you should just reply that it is more reasonable to believe that those who are against evolution are the ones who are mistaken and/or lying because it would not be possible to get so many scientists (from all fields of study), teachers, (not to mention politicians), etc, etc, to maintain a 'conspiracy' if the scientific evidence didn't really support evolution.

In short, tell them that you haven't studied the subject and aren't really that interested, but see no reason whatsoever to accept the position of a religious minority over those of the scientific community.

Yes there is such empirical evidence. First, let's clarify what is meant by empirical evidence. According to the Wikipedia "Empirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation." There is no requirement in the definition that observations must be made in real time, i.e. as the event unfolds, even though that is apparently what the creationists demand as "empirical evidence." To them, the fact that a tree is lying on the ground does not qualify as observation that it fell to the ground. They insist that an observer must be there to observe it in the act of falling for them to accept that the tree has fallen. The tree lying on the ground is accepted as evidence that it has fallen because we made observations that living trees do not lie on the ground and that only dead ones do. That is knowledge gained from observations of countless living trees and dead trees. Such knowledge is empirical because we do not make any assumptions about the normal position of trees based purely on reasoning rather than information we obtain from our senses.

Of course we cannot observe a microorganism evolve into a human, because that process took someone who is immortal to observe. We do have empirical evidence nevertheless. Take for example, the universal genetic code. It is how organisms store information about the genetic make up within DNA. Not only do micro-organisms and humans use DNA as genetic material, but they use the exact same 3 nucleotide sequences to code for the same 20 amino acids. For example, the nucleotide sequence (GCT, or Guanine, Cytosine, Thymine) codes for the amino acid Alanine in bacteria, protists, fungi, plants, non-human animals, and humans. There is no reason why humans or animals should use the same genetic code as bacteria, yeasts, algae and a banana unless they all inherited the code from a common ancestor. Not only do we share the same genetic code, but we also share genes with all other life forms. You may heard that humans share 96% genetic similarity with chimps, but how about the single-celled organism known as Chlamydomonas. Scientists have found the following after sequencing its genome:

"Chlamy shares about 2,300 gene families with both plants and animals, another 1,900 with plants alone, and a full 700 gene families that other plants don't have, but humans do."

If humans did not evolve from a single celled organism, then why are the genes of the single-celled Chlamydomonas found in our cells? Why are there the same genes in plants, chlamydomonas and in humans, if they did not share a common ancestor. Your opponents may also claim that if it happened before, why don't we see it happen again and again. The reason is that conditions have changes. There are millions of species of multicellular life on earth now and they present stiff competition for any single celled organism that may evolve to compete directly with them. 600 million years ago, there weren't any multicellular plants or animals, so the conditions were more favorable.

You can also use the analogy of the computer industry to illustrate your point. Back in the 1970s, Steve Jobs were able to start up a company selling the Apple I computer and Bill Gates was able to create Microsoft selling licenses to an operating system known as DOS. If someone tries to do the same today, they will never succeed. No one is going to buy a primitive computer like the Apple I, unless it was the original, and it is bought by collectors, and no one in this day and age would pay thousands of dollars for a new computer loaded with DOS. The environment has changed, and it is the same for life. No single-celled organisms can evolve into the living equivalent of DOS and Apple I in this day and age of Smart Phones and even watches that have more sophisticated hardware and software than these pioneers. Just because DOS and Apple I cannot succeed in today's market, does not mean that they did not succeed once a long time ago. Just because no micro-organism can evolve into humans in today's environment does not mean that it did not happen long ago.

Your not going to get anywhere. Your opponents will argue "we weren't there"... so that the great time necessary for events to unfold works against us in these sorts of arguments.

I could show you: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

But rather, you are arguing with people who don't really want information, do they? So instead, all the arguments raised by Creationists have been published, dissected, and shown to be false:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answe...

and

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html