[[Neither you nor GourmetDan has been willing to answer my simple question.]]
Wrong- I did answer it in full- you’ll find hte answer up a few posts
[[At what precise point does “micro-evolution” turn into “macro-evolution”?]]
As explained many itmes already- there is no ‘precise point’ because they are two wholly different biological processes- one that exists in reality, and one that is not a scientific reality in nature- Macroevo is a hypothesis that violates chemical, biological, natural and mathematical laws- Microevo is a process that has defiend species specific limitations due to species specific paramters- We know this through myriad tests and experiments- species reamin within their own kinds despite htrowing billions of years worth of mutaitons at them- Micro can not, and does not, nor has ever led to macroevo because hte two are exclusive biological processes which are NOT related one to hte other-
As mentioned, you’ll find the explanation in full some posts back
As GourmetDan points out above, I'm about as dumb as they come, and so try as I might, I just can't find a definition for "macro-evolution" in your words above.
Nor can I see some way to distinguish micro- from macro-evolution.
And as I mentioned to Dan, I have here a 13 page article on the subject of macro-evolution, written from a scientific perspective and defending the idea against anti-evolutionists. This article can be summarized in just a few words:
Macro-evolution is nothing more than the sum of micro-evolutionary processes over long periods of time. That's it.
So I ask you too: which part of that, exactly, do you object to? In other words, where, in your mind does micro-evolution stop and macro-evolution begin?