If you've followed this discussion, you've noted that our GourmetDan has refused to define what he thinks "macro-evolution" might be, if it existed, which it doesn't, he says.
But no real scientist uses the word "macro-evolution." It is strictly a weapon used by anti-evolutionists against science.
What science says is that if evolution makes small changes over a long enough period of time, the end result will be large changes. That makes good sense to me. How about you?
Its like the lawn analogy, if my lawn is flat it makes good sense to me that the whole world is flat.
I took an evolution class in school and picked up a copy of 'Icons of Evolution' for supplementary reading. It was interesting to read about how the Darwinists lie and distort the evidence to fit their preconceived notions and then see the distortions in my own evolution text. My favorite was the circular logic in the definition for homologies I quoted earlier. What self respecting author would have a circular argument in a science text? If there was such extraordinary evidence for macro evolution there would be no need to resort to the lies and distortions found in most text books on the subject.
The reason the skeptics use the terms micro and macro evolution is to clarify what they are talking about. A classic Darwinist ploy is to claim that evolution simply means change over time or genetic drift or some other form of micro evolution. They then go on to insult the 'creationist' for being stupid and thinking the world is flat. The irony is that it is the Darwinists who's obsurd extrapolation is like calling the world flat because their lawn is flat.