Wow, there are so many misstatements of fact and false leaps of logic in your reply, I don't have time to address them all without being late for work.
I'll focus on one, however. You claim that the processes involved in microevolution and macroevolution are exactly the same. Nonsense. Microevolution, as observed without the "intelligent design" interference of manipulation by researchers, occurs within our lifetime and does not demonstrate favorable mutations, but rather a process of natural selection of traits that are already built into the genetic code of a species, generally asserting themselves based on environmental factors. Macroevolution PRESUPPOSES favorable mutations that are not accompanied by sterility and which occur so swiftly that their developmental process does not impede the very survival of the species.
When you defend your position by citing 150 years worth of data, I have to laugh. That time frame is so minute compared to the eons necessitated by your model, that to stake out such an intransigent position is beyond absurd. For one to depend on the readings from an instrument, one must be able to calibrate the instrument. How, pray tell, do you calibrate an instrument for which there is no verifiable data with which to compare it? The very length of time required for the macroevolutionary theory to play itself out is the very thing that works against you, as it is exponentially likely that over the ages there are multiple factors you haven't even been capable of considering. I have no beef with macroevolution as speculation based on what science has learned. What annoys the hell out of me is the arrogance -- the utter lack of humility -- that prevents people like you from saying something as simple as "Well, maybe you're right. I'm just not convinced." No, you feel obligated to denigrate those who haven't bought into your scenario.
And, by the way, logical inference is considered valid legal argumentation, so to say that there is no evidence for the idea that "God did it" is another of your blind spots.
Which is, of course, by itself, no garantee whatsoever as to its value, accuracy, or relevance.
very length of time required for the macroevolutionary theory to play itself out is the very thing that works against you,
For a proponent of induction, you are off on a very strange tact here. Do you think stellar astrononmy is also invalid, because it makes inferential conjectures about events that took place millions of years ago? What scientist has actually detected the production of heavy elements in a supernova?
w; Wow, there are so many misstatements of fact and false leaps of logic in your reply, I don't have time to address them all without being late for work.
Uh huh, Pot Kettle.
w;I'll focus on one, however. You claim that the processes involved in microevolution and macroevolution are exactly the same.
They are exactly the same process. The difference is that microevolution is change in allele frequency that does not result in a new species and macroevolution is accumulated microevolution that does result in a new species.
W; Nonsense. Microevolution, as observed without the "intelligent design" interference of manipulation by researchers, occurs within our lifetime and does not demonstrate favorable mutations, but rather a process of natural selection of traits that are already built into the genetic code of a species, generally asserting themselves based on environmental factors.
The above is total hogwash. Microevolution is change in allele frequency over time. Each allele that forms is a mutation. We can estimate how long a species has been in existence by how many alleles there are at each loci. Since I doubt if you have understood a word of the above, I will quit.