So what is the mechanism that limits your "micro" evolution from becoming "macro" evolution?
Creation "scientists" stopped doing research on their own after they gave up trying to prove Noah's flood and a young earth back in the 50's.
Here's a chance for them to resume research. Let them find and demonstrate whatever it is that limits evolution to a "kind".
My bet is they can't. And further, I don't think they will try, because they already know they will fail. Instead, they, and you, will offer excuses as to why such research is unnecessary.
Actually, foxes have been bred into something like a dog, using the same selection methods hypothesized to have bred wolves to dogs. I suppose all furry four-legged mammals are the same kind, if religion requires it.
I don't have to come up with a mechanism to explain an unproven process. Tell me, why are those fruit flies still fruit flies if there's nothing to keep them from genetically drifting into being something else altogether?
Creation "scientists" stopped doing research on their own after they gave up trying to prove Noah's flood and a young earth back in the 50's.
Untrue, but whatever.
Here's a chance for them to resume research.
Yeah . . . when the atheistic scientists of the world no longer pitch a fit and apply political pressure on the Smithsonian Institute for daring to publish an article on Intellegent Design as a theory (as happened a few months ago), we'll pretend that the scientific playing field is level enough for full Creationists to even bother. Until then, your "offer" is right up there with a housefull of cats offering to let a mouse come speak to them on the benefits of a vegetarian diet.
Let them find and demonstrate whatever it is that limits evolution to a "kind".
Let evolutionists evolve a nice, short-lived species into one that is structurally different first. Until then, you cannot claim macro-evolution is a "fact."
Instead, they, and you, will offer excuses as to why such research is unnecessary.
Like you're offering excuses as to why evolutionists shouldn't have to produce an example of macro-evolution in the lab?
Hey, if you succeed, wonderful. It doesn't threaten my theology in the least. But if you're going to run around claiming that macro-evolution is a fact, you still have to produce results in the lab, not just conjectures based on a fossil record that is so incomplete that you guys had to come up with punk-eek to explain away the lack of evidence.
Unfalsifiable theories that explain away a lack of evidence are not, by their very nature, scientific. Yet that's where evolution is today.