Who's original work was it? And, more importantly, do you agree with it?
I believe the author's statements are completely at odds with the majority of the evolutionist crowd. It's meant to be insulting and attempt to silence the speaker, but adds nothing to the conversation. (Hey! Ironically, that would be dogmatic!)
The 'Origins' website, a staple in evolution-advocacy, clearly identifies the distinction between micro and macro evolution. The citation is here (
click) where you'll read, in addition to the proper definitions themselves, that another "
way to state the difference is that macroevolution is between-species evolution and microevolution is within-species evolution".
I certainly do not feel like a boob for knowing the difference. Nor, I'm sure, do others that know the difference (scientists in the field!) feel like boobs. And I am positive that the evolution-advocates do not feel like boobs. It is nothing at all like believing in "
molecules, but not in atoms, electrons, protons and neutrons".
I'm afraid whomever passed that tidbit on to you is flat out 'wrong' whether arguing in support of, or against, the ToE.
Since you so fondly quote that cite, please read below for what you left out:
“It is this writer’s opinion that macroevolutionary processes are just the vector sum of microevolutionary processes in conjunction with large scale changes in geology and the environment.
The misuse of the terms by creationists is all their own work. It is not due to the ways scientists have used them. Basically when creationists use “macroevolution” they mean “evolution which we object to on theological grounds”, and by “microevolution” they mean “evolution we either cannot deny, or which is acceptable on theological grounds”.