Macroevolution and the distinction between microevolution/macroevolution are creationist fantasies

Clearly, CON did not bother to actually view the entire argument I posted. I did not quote a single word from AaronRa. AaronRa is the author of 3 of the 4 videos which I've posted, but the majority of the texts which I quoted came from the 2 VERY REAL SCIENTISTS (both of them at the very top of their profession) which I mentioned near the bottom of my argument.In any case, I have (completely randomly) actually bothered to LOOK UP one of my opponent's supposed quoted arguments (following is a summary of the BOOK - he called it a paper - which was published in 2002, as written by the author himself):"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. The opposition of evolutionary trends over different time scales is taken as evidence that selection is uncoupled over these scales. I argue that the paradox inferred by trend opposition is eliminated by a hierarchical application of the ‘geometric-mean fitness’ principle, a principle that has been invoked only within the limited context of microevolution in response to environmental variance. This principle implies the elimination of well adapted genotypes – even those with the highest arithmetic mean fitness over a shorter time scale. Contingent on premises concerning the temporal structure of environmental variance, selectivity of extinction, and clade-level heritability, the evolutionary outcome of major environmental change may be viewed as identical in principle to the outcome of minor environmental fluctuations over the short-term. Trend reversals are thus recognized as a fundamental property of selection operating at any phylogenetic level that occur in response to event severities of any magnitude over all time scales. This ‘bet-hedging’ perspective differs from others in that a specified, single hierarchical selective process is proposed to explain observed hierarchical patterns of extinction."I have emphasized the very statement which the author of CON's chosen example himself stated. I think it clearly shows two things:(1) The author believes the same things I have stated - namely, that there is no difference between micro evolution and macro evolution.(2) That CON is lazily doing nothing more than selecting a few titles from the internet, posting them because they have the word "micro evolution" and "macro evolution" in them, and assuming that I would not spend a few minutes FACT CHECKING HIS WORK.I have to admit, that I was being lazy and attempted to view what I hoped would be the easiest work to digest - what he reported to be a paper - in the vain hope of only having to read a few pages. Unfortunately, I found that this was not a paper at all, but instead an ENTIRE BOOK. Lucky for me, the publisher provided a summary article which anyone here can check himself (the summary is provided VERBATIM above, with my emphasis added to the relevant section in bold).CON, do yourself a favor and actually watch the videos. It's a lot to ask - after all, you'll have to get through more than 40 minutes of some "unscholarly" guy like AaronRa. But after watching any of that, I *really* have to wonder just what kind of world we live in when someone like you (a creationist) deliberately chooses to believe assertions made by the likes of Hovind, Kirk Cameron, Ken Ham, and Ray Comfort - all charlatans of the WORST KIND - over the words of someone like AaronRa who spends his spare time carefully summarizing the cutting edge of science for us? Aaron at least will make every single one of his assertions searchable - you can contact him and he will have no trouble at all giving you his exact sources; and believe me, they are not just "one source here or there" - he will provide you a list that will make your heart stop. There are literally thousands of articles that he has sifted through for the past decade!Anyone can look up my assertions: Here is the link for the BOOK (by Simons)- http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...------------------------- CON makes some pretty silly assertions: If we find just ONE mention somewhere on the internet, then the whole concept of creationists using micro-macro must be false. Well, if that's all it takes, should I post all those creationist links of how they misappropriate micro-macro every single day? Should I list a few more youtube videos where Kirk, Ken, Kent, and Ray make fools of themselves?I believe we have the work of Eugenie Scott already (which I did quote and CON apparantly didn't notice), for example, where she clearly outlines how the two are the same thing and NOT used in her work.How many more "errors" is CON going to make before we can all agree that his argument is based on nothing more than that special, witless place called "creation-science" where people are misquoted and we are openly lied to?Shame on CON for picking a "paper" which turned out to be a BOOK, and a subject for his argument which clearly is an argument for my side. Just imagine how many more of his arguments are full of falsehoods...should I check the rest of them as well?