Of course I can't speak for anyone else, but you are right about me -- I'm as dumb as they come. And you are obviously a genius, which I said in the beginning, but you keep trying to prove me wrong!
Listen carefully -- I have here a 13 page article on macro-evolution, written from a scientific perspective and defending the idea against anti-evolutionists. This long 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 which part of that, exactly, do you object to? In other words, where, in your mind, does micro-evolution stop and macro-evolution begin?
Finally, I note this gem:
"it's like me asking you to define exactly which biological system could not have been intelligently-designed."
Just so we're clear about this, like most Christians, including Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and "mainline" Protestants, I believe in something called "Theistic Evolution," meaning God created everything -- scientific and non-scientific, micro and macro, short-term and long-term, whatever. Whether He did it all in six days or six billion years is more-or-less irrelevant, except that science tells us the evidence points towards older dates. And that's fine with me.
So my direct & clear answer to your question is: imho, ALL biological systems were "intelligently designed" by God through processes that science describes with the word "evolution."
What's your problem with that?
Fortunately, if you really are 'as dumb as they come' then we can safely ignore any statements you make about me. Of course, my statement that you quoted was taken out of the context in which it was given and supports my conclusion that you really are what you confess to be.
That context was that you assume macro-evolution exists 'a priori' and then ask me to draw a line between macro and micro evolution. What you are so dense about is that you refuse to acknowledge that you assume macro-evolution 'a priori' and then ask me to define the difference between what is observed and what is assumed 'a priori'.
As I have explained twice already now, this is akin to me asking you to point to a biological system than cannot have been intelligently-designed in 6 days 6,000 years ago without appealing to the fallacy of appeal to perfection. You have not done so yet and cannot do so.
"Macro-evolution is nothing more than the sum of micro-evolutionary processes over long periods of time. That's it."
First, you assume that long periods of unobserved time actually exist. Then you assume that there us a 'product' of micro-evolutionary 'processes' that will accumulate in some 'direction' (i.e., that macro-evolution is teleological, something that all scientists deny) rather than simply varying around the original starting point or gradually declining. Neither of these assumptions can be shown to be true, but are implicit in your 'a priori' assumption.
"So which part of that, exactly, do you object to? In other words, where, in your mind, does micro-evolution stop and macro-evolution begin?"
So which biological-system, exactly, do you think cannot have been intelligently-designed in 6 days about 6,000 years ago (without appealing to the fallacy of appeal to perfection)? Where exactly, in your mind, was God limited in what he could do in 6 days 6,000 years ago and was forced to rely on 'accumulated micro-evolutionary changes'?
"Just so we're clear about this, like most Christians, including Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and "mainline" Protestants, I believe in something called "Theistic Evolution," meaning God created everything -- scientific and non-scientific, micro and macro, short-term and long-term, whatever."
Well, you have a problem then because you define evolution as being teleological and science says it is not. This is not something that you can gloss over with a simple 'whatever'. It is the crux of the issue. Which is it? Is science correct and evolution non-teleological or did God create life? And if God created life, why does he create a process that man says is non-teleological to achieve his purpose?
"Whether He did it all in six days or six billion years is more-or-less irrelevant, except that science tells us the evidence points towards older dates. And that's fine with me."
This just shows that you don't understand the issue. It is absolutely relevant whether or not God did it all in 6 days about 6,000 years ago. If he did, then you are wrong and all of your appeal to unobserved macro-evolution is what is irrelevant, whether it is fine w/ you or not. So again I ask you, which biological-system, exactly, cannot have been the result of intelligent-design by God in 6 days about 6,000 years ago (without invoking the fallacy of appeal to perfection).
"So my direct & clear answer to your question is: imho, ALL biological systems were "intelligently designed" by God through processes that science describes with the word "evolution.""
Here again, you must assume that macro-evolution is true 'a priori' and that God cannot have created biological-systems in basically their present form in 6 days about 6,000 years ago. That God used 'evolution' is still an assumption that is impossible to prove and not only relevant but the entire crux of the issue.
"What's your problem with that?"
What's your problem with naming a biological-system that cannot have been created by God in 6 days about 6,000 years ago (without invoking the fallacy of appeal to perfection). Since this is simply the opposite of what you would require of me, if you cannot do that, you have no standing to require anything of me.