Very much like tossing out the baby with the bathwater.
We are not tossing out science to avoid evolution, but tossing out evolution to keep science.
Quote
As was mentioned previously, the definition of micro and macro evolution has been arbitrary and is the responsibility of the user to define it. If something is rejected scientifically, what is the metric involved? And what level of precision used?
Here is the on-line encyclopedic definition of a common usage of species: There are many definitions of what kind of unit a species is (or should be). A common definition is that of a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring of both genders, and separated from other such groups with which interbreeding does not (normally) happen.
There are different working definitions depending on the context, but the above is in line with what we infer. Different kinds of dogs can "normally" interbreed but cats and dogs "normally" cannot. This is why the term subspecies is often used when differentiating "micro" differences within species from "macro" differences between species.
The terms micro and macro work very well within this common framework.
Quote
What are the units of a macro, is it divisible by micros? And if so, how many micros equals one macro.
Thats like asking how many subspecies does it take to make up one whole specie? You can't always give an intelligent answer to a deliberately obtuse question.
Quote
The inability to clearly and unambiguously define micros and macros would suggests that the rejection was/is based on something other than science.
