Macroevolution and the distinction between microevolution/macroevolution are creationist fantasies

It would appear that my opponent is still marching on to his own beat regarding my assertions. He is still fervently believing in his own sources. So let's take a few minutes and discuss those very sources (as I have threatened to do for several rounds now):James Tour, just like my opponent supposes, is a bio chemist of the highest caliber. Unfortunately, my opponent chose to obfuscate his full credentials. He is not an evolutionist, a biologist, a paleontologist, or anything else to do with this debate.He is a SYNTHETIC bio chemist, who specializes in nano-tubes and nano-carbon compounds. In other words, if you place a seed from a sun flower in front of this man, he is already out of his professional sphere.But let's go on and talk a little more about Prof. Tour: The video that CON has posted starts out as a litany of his achievements in nano technology, but then quickly deteriorates into a sermon. "That if I confess with my mouth, Jesus the Lord...." (25:04 of Con's video) and so on. At no point does he make the statement that micro and macro evolution exist, by the way.Furthermore, he is a known Intelligent Design advocate who signed several petitions created by the Creationist "Discovery Institute".Here's a little quote I found regarding this very petition: In their 2010 book Biology and Ideology from Descartes to Dawkins, science and religion scholar Denis Alexander and historian of science Ronald L. Numbers tied the fate of the Dissent to that of the wider intelligent design movement: After more than a decade of effort the Discovery Institute proudly announced in 2007 that it had got some 700 doctoral-level scientists and engineers to sign "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism." Though the number may strike some observers as rather large, it represented less than 0.023 percent of the world's scientists. On the scientific front of the much ballyhooed "Evolution Wars", the Darwinists were winning handily. The ideological struggle between (methodological) naturalism and supernaturalism continued largely in the fantasies of the faithful and the hyperbole of the press. None of this is surprising. Creationists routinely will pull laymen in a particular field out of the ether, sometimes bedecked with several degrees in unrelated disciplines - but mostly with nothing more than mail-order religious degrees, and then have them make the same debunked statements that have already been addressed by real science over the past two centuries over and over again.Somewhere in the video, Tour makes a statement regarding the human fallacies of scientists. I wholeheartedly agree with him. In particular, I agree when this is mentioned in a creationist debate, such as this one. Tour CLEARLY is not an evolution expert. Even by legal definition - other than write a couple of religious books he has never had anything to do with biology.How could he possibly know about micro-macro? Check CON's earlier statements which he lifted from Tour - he made them ca. a decade ago. Folks, this is exactly what I had warned about several rounds ago:Science is a moving target. It constantly evolves, it constantly changes. Thirty years ago we thought that pollution may cause a global freeze, but now the facts are much more developed, the science is much stronger. We KNOW that gobal temperatures are rising. Using CON's method of quotemining from years ago from people that are not in the science of this debate is the equivalent of quoting the Ayatolah (i.e. the previous one) when he stated that global warming was non-existent and the jews were never in concentration camps in the same speech.If we all continued to act and believe the way that CON is trying to inject his obsolete views into this debate, we would still be shopping for 8-bit computers and the existence of black holes would still be questioned. Science is a moving target. New discoveries lead to new beliefs all the time. When I was a child, one of the biggest questions about dinosaurs was whether or not they were warm blooded. This isn't news anymore - the question has been substantially answered now: They were warm blooded the same way that birds are warm blooded. There were questions as to what would make a good example of a transitional fossil. We have so many now that the question has become completely irrelevant. We have over 20 transitional species just between monkeys and man, for example, not to mention about two dozen between birds and dinosaurs. And every single day, they are finding more fossils, of which some will be "transitional" and some will just be regular fossils.In this same way that these arguments between evolutionary and biological scientists are being addressed, has the question of micro-macro been addressed.I have absolutely no idea why CON would go and pick out a bunch of creationists that essentially don't believe in ANY PART OF EVOLUTION, including any part of macro evolution, to be his list of "experts". In order for them to even be mildly useful for his side of the debate, clearly, they would at LEAST have to agree with the idea that MACRO EXISTS! But they don't. Not even his hero Prof. Tour. In fact, go down the list- they're all creationists that don't believe in macro at all, and CON is using them to make YOU ALL BELIEVE that micro-macro is still a part of current biological science. It is not. None of his sources are worth a damn. None of his sources support his thesis. None of his statement make any sense in light of the two expert opinions which I have offered before from people that ARE experts in this very field or in light of his own useless sources.So thank you CON, again, for using sources that continuously support my thesis.