I don't think you know what "tangible" means.
edit: That, or you don't know what "evidence" means.  One or the other.

tell me.

They aren't all still here...at least in the graph involving ancient humans. In the others, it appears to be just a list of extant species. Many of the transitional phases (many of which have been identified) went extinct long ago. 

Also, just for clarification, the idea that humans are the pinnacle of evolution and that all species evolve in the same direction is wrong and only held by people who are ignorant about the ways that evolution works. 

Ever heard of Tiktaalik? One of the huge missing links between fish and amphibians found about 10 years ago and dates back about 375 million years...satisfied?

One of the main strengths of the evolutionary theory is its use as a predictive model. We can use what we know to fill in gaps in our understanding and say, in this place, at this time, we should find something with these characteristics, and as shown with the Tiktaalik, exactly that can happen. 

How is a huge fossil record and a multitude of records of microevolution "no tangible evidence"?

We do, we're just limited on how large a scale we can watch it happen. If it's something like a virus or bacteria that has an incredibly short life cycle, we can see it evolve rapidly (providing the environment encourages it, of course). Why do you think there is such a strong push to limit our use of antibiotics? Because out excessive use of them is leading to the rapid evolution of some types of bacteria, resulting in 'super bacteria' (ones that are immune to antibiotics).

It's perfectly understandable for some people to believe evolution hasn't happend, but there is no deny that it can happen. That, combined with how closely nit many species are (as well as the various types of the same animal, each specialized to their environment) is why it's so widely believed.

The best example is the 'tall world' situation. Two tall parents are considerably more likely to have a tall child than two short parents. It's not a universal outcome (since there are other favors involved), but the probability of the child being tall is considerably higher for the former than the latter. So now that we have established a human's physiology can be directly influence by the passing on of genes, let's expand it to a hypothetical situation.

Let's say we live in a world where being tall is a huge survival advantage, due to [x] circumstances. This would mean tall people would generally be more sought after for mating than short people, and would likewise have the potential to survive in this world longer (thus have more opportunities to have kids). This would mean that, over the period of several generations, the humans race would get continually taller. That is, in essence, evolution.

The issue in observing it in things like humans is that we have long generations gaps (generally about 25 years). In the situation i explained above, where we have a direct environment challenge and a pre-existing gene to combat it, the process would still take hundreds of years for it to drastically affect our appearance. Shit's slow yo o/

Tangible: (oxford)
Clear and definite; real: 
Evidence: (oxford)
The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true orvalid:
So, basically "tangible evidence" would be "facts or information" that is "real" (perceptible to touch is another definition) that "indicates whether" something is valid.  

Evolution most definitely has that.  

edit: Fossils are just one of the many "tangible evidence" that support the theory of Evolution.

OK. 

so you are basically saying evolution is not a fact like I do..right ? 

You know, Christians should be Christlike, and Jesus said to love your neighbors and enemies as yourself. That means doing things that would please yourself, but doing to others. You wouldn't like Atheists to do threads like this would you? Also, Atheists, please leave this thread as this has nothing to do with evolution, but with RCC.

Are you aware that the statements A is B and A is not B are at odds? The law of noncontradiction is rather rigidly established as a logical axiom.

Let us input your comment into logical form:

Let us represent 'Atheism' as 'A'. Let us represent 'Belief' as 'B'.

P1) A → !B

P2) !B → B

C) A → B

Do you see how P2 doesn't make any sense as all, having violated the law of noncontradiction? You've said that B is itself while also not itself. Which is to say that a toaster is a toaster and not a toaster. (T ^ !T) which can never obtain...

I actually want Atheist to do this to Christianity. I haven't requested it so far because it feels out of place. If an Atheist is reading this, accept the challenge!

And why can't atheists discuss about the Roman Catholic Church? The reason this thread has shifted towards evolution was because of 3rd post in this thread which started a chain and now is the main focus.