Welcome to Gaia! ::

Creationists argue that macro evolution is illogical on the ground that when breaking down complex processes into basic components, because you eventually reach a point where continuing is either impossible or pointless as you have arrived at a set of basic elements which are only of use when taken as a group, and the likelihood of all the elements required for the process to work evolving simultaneously is low.

For this argument, I have discovered a simple counter argument.

Okra.

Simply put, okra is disgusting.

As okra itself is disgusting and useless, it makes no sense for any person to use it in a dish they intend to eat. Inexplicably, however, there exist quite a few good dishes that use Okra - enough that it is actually sold in stores.

There's only one 'reasonable' and two reasonable means by which these dishes could have evolved:
The 'reasonable' way would be that the dishes were created by god himself - not his first foray into the culinary arts; he already gave us manna, angel food cake, and some cheesecake that's simply divine. Rimshot!
The first reasonable way is that okra was added to an existing dish, and then over time the dish was altered in order to make more effective use of available parts - Just as vision started with cells in the transparent primordial brain that detected light that gradually clustered in central locations with an extended clump of neurons and gradually evolved into the modern eye.
The second reasonable way is that it was created by a freak accident but was of sufficient benefit that it quickly spread - I can't think of any ready examples of this in nature, but I blame that on this horrible mind-dampening chemical known as "Splenda".

Damn, you're smart.