You claim:
“In the scientific world, we do not distinguish between “macro” and “micro” evolution. The process of evolution is the process of accumulation of random mutations over time. Some mutations are not survivable, so do not persist, but other mutations remain and are passed down to the offspring.”
However, any scientist true to his data will assert that there is a big difference between micro and macro.
Furthermore, the vast majority of mutations are not beneficial, can accumulate and will eventually lead to the extinction of a species. Far more species are extinct than those that remain pointing to devolution.
You're being kind, there. It would be a hard thing to do to come up with an example of a "beneficial" mutation. Besides, mutations get "repaired", ie, nullified, in most cases.
“In the scientific world, we do not distinguish between “macro” and “micro” evolution. The process of evolution is the process of accumulation of random mutations over time. Some mutations are not survivable, so do not persist, but other mutations remain and are passed down to the offspring.”
However, any scientist true to his data will assert that there is a big difference between micro and macro.
Furthermore, the vast majority of mutations are not beneficial, can accumulate and will eventually lead to the extinction of a species. Far more species are extinct than those that remain pointing to devolution.
Of course, there is a big difference between "macro" and "micro." But when talking about evolutionary theory, the words "macro" and "micro" were introduced by creationists, not scientists, in an effort to explain away the scientific data while still rejecting evolution. "Macro" evolution, as I understand the creationists' use of the term, is a claim that, for example, fish could lay eggs out of which lizards would hatch, and the "proof" demanded of evolution would be to show that such events not only occur but are commonplace. Of course, no scientist ever claimed anything of the kind. Evolution IS micro evolution; what distinguishes one species from another is the accumulation of changes that occur over time. You can start with identical populations on two different islands, but after even a few generations, they will no longer be identical. Speciation is said to occur when the two populations can no longer interbreed.
Even if most mutations are not beneficial, it is irrelevant to the discussion. I could get into a really long and technical discussion about beneficial, neutral, deleterious, and conditional mutations, but I'll spare everyone for now and just repeat what one of my biology teachers said: If you are breeding cats to jump long distances, and you are testing them by having them leap across a five yard chasm, the ten thousand cats that didn't make it across don't matter. The one that survived is the only one you're concerned about; it's the only one that's going to have kittens and perpetuate the species. In other words, you don't see the harmful mutations, you only see the beneficial ones.