Macroevolution and the distinction between microevolution/macroevolution are creationist fantasies

My apologies if CON was misled by the formatting of my prior arguments; I did inject the video links in all the correct locations, but debate.org appears to reposition them near the top of the argument. However, and I must stress this: None of this excuses CON from his fiduciary duty of reading my post and watching the videos. In the end, that error is his own fault, and there is nothing I can do to fix that for him.As to his failure to check factual information laid before his feet, let me quote my esteemed opponent with his own words:PRO appeals to me to watch AronRa’s videos. Why, again, are they relevant? Admittedly I am not going to watch them. Perhaps they contain arguments that overturn my position? I confess I will just have to take that risk.I believe the phrase is called "playing ostrich". And yes, the videos contain quite convincing evidence which is completely contrary to your position. It is so painful to watch a creationist in "action" (inaction) - adamantly denying the existence of something that is damaging to their own view.My beliefs change all the time. Until a few years ago, for example, I sided with the "people didn't cause climate change" crowd. Now I do, based on new evidence, new technology, and a better understanding of the situation. I pulled my head out of the sand to take a look. Will you?----------------------------------------------Prior to 1861, most scientists had the prevailing view of spontaneous generation, whereby it was proposed that all life instantly poofed into existence if the right conditions were met. Believe it or not, this included the idea that mice would poof into existence if cheese was left in a darkened corner in a house, or if a field was plowed correctly flowers would bloom. Louis Pasteur, one of the key proponents to Germ Theory, convincingly disproved spontaneous generation, and today (and for over 125 years now) we don't follow, teach, or learn that theory anymore.Why do I mention this? I mention this because this is exactly the tact which CON is using to argue. He is injecting the long-held, outdated views of micro-macro instead of issuing arguments from current science. Current science is very clear on this:(1) There are no process differences between micro/macro.(2) There is no well-defined time/dna/etc difference between the two.(3) Micro and macro are both evolution.(4) The only difference between the two would be the amount of time time involved (do peek at #2 again, folks).In particular, the reason why micro-macro is no longer in use in any of science, is because of the problem with #2. Some micro-mutations are actually more than a single mutation, i.e. more than a single individual making a change, more than a single mutation, more than a single gene, and even more than a single genome group being changed. The same is true for macro-mutations. Some are less than an entire species, less than a large change from one to another, and sometimes they even involve animals and plants that can still mate and produce viable offspring.Evolution, after all, isn't a step. It isn't an entire species jumping from TYPE A to TYPE B. It is individuals combining their mutated traits with non-mutated traits over many generations, against environmental pressures and natural selection, to possibly survive long enough to pass on advantages and die soon enough to weed out disadvantages.And on top of that, depending on when or how long the steps take, or even where the data points are revealed (i.e. the fossil record is a discrete record, or in other words not a continuous record of every individual and every variation of every species), the differences between the two end up being nearly impossible to express and certainly impossible to describe from one group to the next with any kind of consistency. Some animals might change over a few thousand years, others take millions or billions of years. The scale alone would make your head spin.I realize that for many of us the idea that science has moved on and didn't bother to send us an email (micro-macro died a sad death) may be shocking. However, this happens all the time in all kinds of other fields - how many of us still have an 8-bit computer at home, for example?To conclude my new arguments for this round, let me say this: CON proposes that we go back to 1860 and live with the idea of spontaneous generation. Micro-macro is no longer a scientific idea - it has been logically reduced to the absurd notion that it once was, and is discarded from current scientific discussion.------------------------------------My rebuttal to some of CON's rebuttals:"A persistent debate in evolutionary biology is one over the continuity of microevolution and macroevolution – whether macroevolutionary trends are governed by the principles of microevolution."Just like every other "good" creationist that I've ever encountered, CON continuous to misquote his own references. Now, he finds the introductory sentence of a summary article which I clearly pointed out as favoring my view. He is still doing nothing more than finding "micro this" and "macro that" in titles and sentences as if this were all that is required to make his assertions true.What he needs to do to prove his assertions, is a peer reviewed paper by a current scientist that basically says the following: "The difference between micro evolution and macro evoution is....blablabla".Instead, he's is finding "spontaneous generation" from years past, barely with a mention in the titles of his sources about his theory, and where the very body of his sources clearly points to my assertion.In addition, he keeps raising the authors of his sources as if they were micro-macro proponents. They are not. They are evolutionary biologists whose least concern on the planet is whether or not micro-macro is a viable theory anymore. For most of them, the consensus is clear: It is not science anymore.I will ask my opponent one more time, for sake of civility: Do you want me to expose the rest of your sources with what they factually did say?I have given you two unimpeachable sources, and clearly exposed things which they have said many times over the last decade or so. I did not quote mine either of them but can point to many recorded places where they both have stated how micro-macro is nonsense. Both are near the top of their profession. They are leaders in their field. Anyone can check my assertions about them with nothing more than a quick google search. They both have email addresses and phone numbers. We can contact them and ask them directly, and yes, I've done this in the past with several others. Usually they are quite eager to talk about their work.Compare this to what you have offered: Quote-mined titles! In addition, I would ask our readers to read them carefully: Several state that macroevolution DOES NOT EXIST!Meanwhile, what is PRO thinking? I have no idea. I leave it to the reader as an exercise.Well, I won't leave it as an exercise. From the same book, this time the LAST SENTENCE OF THE CONCLUSION:"Claims of qualitative differences in the process of natural selection depending on the severity of selection events become unnecessary and therefore should bid a tierful goodbye."And yes folks, that is CON's source basically telling all of us that the idea of micro-macro should be bid a "tierful goodbye". Check it out yourself, the link is here:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...-------------------If there is a pattern emerging in my opponent's arguments, then it is this:(1) He doesn't check his own sources and nilly-willy picks them based on titles alone.(2) He doesn't check my sources and doesn't bother to watch evidence placed before him.(3) He goes back to redefend his own sources on more titles and introductory sentences.