The difference you claim between micro and macro evolution is a creationist construct. Although scientists started using the terms and some still use them the difference is of degree only, not of type as you would have. The creationists tactic of changing meaning to make a point easier to attack is one you use frequently, including in this post. You should ask yourself why you need to create strawmen arguments.
As far as recessive genes lying dormant until a changed selection makes them beneficial, this is a hypothesis that is not accepted by the majority of biologists because it has not been researched fully. If it turns out that it is a reliably observed mechanism it will become part of the synthesis. Note the qualification that it needs to be more than just speculation to be accepted - counter to your assertion.
" evolution with a brain as it were.. The more desperate they get, the quackier the theory becomes. And they don't seem to think the desperation is so transparent.. Morons shifting the game in broad daylight thinking they're hidden from the light.
The theory changes as new information comes to light. New information is a result of more precise measurement techniques and finds in the field as well as in the lab. Would you prefer science not adjust as techniques improve?
Morons? I doubt scientists could be called morons by any intelligence measuring test.
Perhaps our genius evolution critics could name a branch of science that does not change and adapt with new data.
Some of them have mentioned gravity. Anyone care to list the revisions that gravity has undergone in the last few centuries?
No, and that's a lie plain and simple. Creationists did not establish the pseudo-scientific lingo that Darwinist/evos use in their explanations. Macro-evolution is an evolutionist construct - not creationinst. You guys have just been so busy trying to blur the lines between micro and macro for so long that you're believing your own lies now apparently. People rejected the leap between the two and because you knew that was the case and wanted to gain ground, you have tried to hack macro away in order to hide the problem of speciation as it was originally proferred. Something new and different arising from something prior. Instead of proving your case (which you can't), you change your story to avoid the requirement of proof.. as though it lets you off the hook. It doesn't. You're losing ground and have largely lost the debate.