Fruit flies. Two genetic lines were interbred until they can no longer cross-breed, which is, by definition, "macro-evolution". But the mere fact that you make that argument shows your prejudices, because science makes no distinction between "micro" and "macro" evolution. That meme was sheer invention by the literal creationists.
All well and good except that those mutated fruit flies could not re-produce and they were still fruit flies. Also since this was done in a lab where intelligent design was super-imposed this would in fact invalidate the very idea that it is a natural process proving macro-evolution.
Macro-evolution means they would have to evolve into some new kind of organism. Never mind that the odds of any organism re-wiring the genetic code to re-produce something other than what they are is mathematically impossible. Even a measly 2-6% is a highly insurmountable number of ‘beneficial’ mutations for any organism to undergo - right AMD?
To quote you: But the mere fact that you make that argument shows your prejudices, because science makes no distinction between "micro" and "macro" evolution. That meme was sheer invention by the literal creationists.
And "Evolution is how the world works. God set it up that way. The only people that have significant problems with that are the "biblical literalists" of Christianity."
Now I ask, who is being prejudiced here. First, you make a wild claim that God exists, and that he set up evolution, and then claim that that anyone who has a problem with it is a literal biblical creationists (combining your terms). However, most evolutionist are anti-God, most notably Eugenie Scott, Richard Dawkins, and the late Stephen Jay Gould. All of them would find your description of evolution (dare I say it?) heresy.
The you say science does not distinguish between micro and macro, as if it was a living thing. No, man chooses to or not to distinguish between micro and macro. No avenue of science is ever completely settled, as we do not know everything. To insinuate that after only 150 years, we can consider the science "settled" is a arrogant as insisting the the sun revolves around the Earth because it had been "settled science" for thousands of years.
You make the dangerous presupposition that those who do not think the way you do are somehow less intelligent, honest, thoughtful, and do not seek after the truth. Attempting to marginalize those who disagree with you makes it easy to dismiss them. The problem is that it is not so. There are many well-educated, intelligent, honest truth-seekers out there who disagree. I appreciate your answer, but the attack of my character what not called for.