Glen Kuban is a biology teacher and Gregg Wilkerson is a PhD geologist who have followed the Paluxy prints for years and have written about the Burdick print here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/wilker5.html

(Unlike Baugh's fake credentials, both of these guys have real degrees from accredited schools that actually exist.)

You ask for a "splinter" of support for evolution - with pictures? There's plenty of real science material available on the net. I don't know what possible use it could be to you, if you dismiss it outright. As I mentioned previously, creationists demand an unreasonable standard of "proof" from evolution, but are completely gullible when it comes to "evidence" provided by creation "scientists" like Baugh, Gish, Morris, and Berlinski.


Here's some evidence:
DonExodus2 has a series of 4 or 5 videos called "irrefutable proof of evolution." (He's using the word "proof" in the legal sense, not the mathematical sense.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1fGkFuHIu0

But I would not start there. Before you examine what the evidence is for the science, it would be a good idea to understand what science is and what the theory of evolution is.

The best book I know of to explain evolution is "What Evolution Is" by Ernst Mayr. It discusses some small evidence for evolution, but that's really a side point. It's primary value is that it explains clearly what the theory actually is and what it predicts. Of course reading this book is not a cure all. I was arguing with a creationist a while back who was quoting the book to me, but who obviously hadn't read it very carefully. I know that scientists are like, you know, all arrogant and everything, and like, you know, creationists are filled with godly humility, but it would seriously help the argument, if, when they read something, they would actually make an effort to understand what is being said. Books require some effort.
Here's a weak attempt to explain evolution in a video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0_-zqHoub8
This is my attempt to answer "The Octamed Challenge" here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCumew-ifXE
He has a number of video responses.
If you're serious, you'll find a good book, though.
Here's a clarification of a simple point:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TOwPLP72bg
Another common creationist misrepresentation of science:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWMIkp8udPg
Creationists almost always assert that they 'HAVE DONE THEIR HOMEWORK' but even when they can recite factoids, every other sentence they utter betrays a profound lack of comprehension of what they're talking about.

Which leads naturally into the following: before trying to understand evolution, it might help to understand what science is. Creationists often tout some comic book presentation of science and then show how evolution fails to meet this comic book criteria they have laid out. One mantra is that science has to be observable, predictable or repeatable - which is almost right, but requires some elaboration for correct understanding. Another one that is just plain comical is that "Evolution is merely INFERENCE!"

Here's a blurb on the difference between law and theory:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Un-I0mRq8Dw

Here's a few vids on scientific method:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsSlj916GDU&feature=channel_page
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcavPAFiG14

A good thing to do is read a book like "Objective Knowledge" by Karl Popper. However, it's hard going.
I offer a brief synopsis here: http://geocities.com/elbillaf/read_001.html

Of course, to understand it requires a serious reading and not the usual activity that creationists identify with that name.