"I quoted you the difference between micro and macro based on the common usage of the term species. Perhaps it makes it easier to say that one family of species never evolves into another family of species. How hard is that to understand? if you are willing to understand it."
Common usage was adequate before the molecular revolution. The criteria and precision of how to parse the natural world has drastically changed in the past 30 years with the flood of new scientific information since molecular tools first became available. I can't know when you were in school but by your posts, it is clear that you need to visit a modern library, perhaps take a current molecular biology course, have fewer dinners with college presidents whose chief job is to pimp for endowments and and see what you have been missing.
"Scientists and science textbooks would differ among themselves on how to split hairs over certain divisions, yet that does not obscure the obvious understandings of species and families of species."
Precisely the point. Exactly what defines one species from another is a human construct and is therefore arbitrary. Let me help you with the logic. If what defines a species is arbitrary, and your definition of what is micro and macro evolution is hinged on the definition of species, then the definition of micro and macro is arbitrary. As you have stated in an earlier post, you have no problem with 'micro evolution'. If micro is no different than macro, congratulations, you are an evolutionist. And I did not mean that as a derogatory insult.
Have you even thought about the questions that were posed to you in previous posts? Take them on, one by one. Take your time. They are exactly the kind of questions you should be asking, if only for yourself if you are truly interested in knowing the kind of foundation that your belief system is built on. So far, it appears to be a little shaky.
