Your arguments say nothing except to deny the obvious. You have not correctly answered even one of my simple questions.
You are way too quick with insults.
You have nothing of value to offer.
My arguments point out the obvious that you simply deny.
To explain again, you cannot ask a question that assumes a logical fallacy 'a priori' and expect that any answer confirms or rejects your belief. Your question assumes fallacy is truth. That is a critical-thinking error.
"You are way too quick with insults."
Pointing out that your critical-thinking skills are lacking is an insult? How would you have me point out that obvious fact without 'insulting' you?
"You have nothing of value to offer."
What I offer is the essence of understanding that macroevolution is nothing more than an 'a priori' assumption of philosophical naturalism based on the fallacy of affirming the consequent. You simply lack the ability to comprehend it.