[gore3000]

Such as that produced by the gene duplication observed in those monkeys a few weeks back?

The gene duplication mentioned there was not macro-evolution, here's why:
1. the gene already existed so there is no proof that duplication ever happened.
2. the gene remained the same size. You need different size genes for new faculties.
3. the "new" gene coded for a very similar function. It enabled the better consumption of a protein similar to the one the other gene was coding for.

[Junior]

1. the gene already existed so there is no proof that duplication ever happened.

The gene in question was identical to another gene in the monkey's genome, and doesn't appear in any of the monkey's relatives' genomes. This is a good indication that the gene in question is a duplication.

2. the gene remained the same size. You need different size genes for new faculties.

Why? I never heard of this being a prerequisite. Could not the new gene encode for something requiring fewer base pairs than the original gene? Could not the new gene be incorporated, along with other unused sections of genome to encode for something requiring more base pairs? Do you actually consider the implications of your statements before making them?

3. the "new" gene coded for a very similar function. It enabled the better consumption of a protein similar to the one the other gene was coding for.

But since we already have one gene producing the required protein, the other gene is free to mutate or absorb changes.