I am willing to admit I don't have a good, succinct definition of macro-evolution from a scientific dictionary, but hybrid speciation (the combination of two independent species' characteristics) is not substantial evidence of the ability to create new classifications of life-forms through minute evolutionary steps. It is the greater leaps in differentiation that are at question with regard to evolution versus creation, not the hybridization of compatible and similar life-forms. I'd be interested to know where your definition of macro-evolution comes from
It's pretty mainstream. Here's a good explanation.
Also, your assertion that "from now on the new species will only diverge further from its parent species" is supposition, unsupportable from the evidence in this article. Unless there is a connected trail of evidence concerning the continued divergence of one life-form from another, then the conclusion you have drawn is only a conclusion - not an established fact.
The thing is, if the new species cannot interbreed with either of its parents, then no matter what new mutations arise & take over its genome, they will never be able to get transmitted back to the parent species. Meanwhile the chances of the same mutation also occurring in the same spot in the parent species' genes is infinitesimal. So this new species has no where to go but further away from its parent species.
BTW - Thanks for replying with information - I often avoid these kinds of threads because I prefer at least semi-informed debate to the smug ranting these threads often devolve into.
You're welcome. I try not to be the first one to descend into ranting. :-)
To what species does the cross of the new species and a parent belong, when the new species can interbreed with a parent?