Like all evolutionists, you try to create confusion. Homo is the genus of man hence homo sapiens, homo erectus and homo neanderthalis. These are different species in the same genus. They are called different species because they could not produce progeny with each other. Primates is a higher classification than both species and genus, it is an order. So no, it is not the same thing as the examples given. The examples given were in some cases just sub-species, in other cases species. None were of a different genus. So no, they are not examples of macro-evolution. They are just examples of the garbage that evolutionists try to pass off as proof of their theory.
[You:] Like all evolutionists, you try to create confusion. Homo is the genus of man hence homo sapiens, homo erectus and homo neanderthalis. These are different species in the same genus. They are called different species because they could not produce progeny with each other. Primates is a higher classification than both species and genus, it is an order. So no, it is not the same thing as the examples given. The examples given were in some cases just sub-species, in other cases species. None were of a different genus. So no, they are not examples of macro-evolution. They are just examples of the garbage that evolutionists try to pass off as proof of their theory.
I'm trying to create confusion? I was responding to post #1014, which claimed that "micro-evolution" might create new species, but "they will still be birds." Birds are an order, not a genus. As I also said in my post (but you didn't quote), a human and a chimp are far closer, genetically and structurally, than an ostrich and a sparrow.