I did not say that organism would die to do its genetic makeup. I hope you understood that the animal be very vulnerable to attack from other animals if his body were a poorly designed iguana or half-assed bird.
We see micro-evolution every day and is indeed very important. Macro-evolution is nothing more than “ho-hum”, “Gee! That's interesting” ( yawn) to the vast majority of working scientists and health professionals.
Even my daughter's college text book for biology majors had only 4 or 5 pages on macro-evolution. The book was likely 3 inches thick! Evidently, marcro-evolution isn't even that important for **biologists**
She took college biology for science majors when she was only 14. She had had no high school biology. She and I read every page of her assignments aloud, together. This was only in the past 5 years, so I feel I have a fair idea of what is being taught in college these days.
Do you consider the australopithocine a “half assed chimp” or a “poorly designed human”; or do you view it as a upright ape that lived for over a million years over a large part of Africa as a perfectly complete unto itself biological species? The latter is certainly the biological view.
You claimed that “micro” changes could not become “macro” changes due to viability, but obviously there is nothing unviable about either end of the spectrum or any variation in between.
Don’t let them snow you. They know what is meant by *macro-evolution.
I’d like them to explain how changing the number of chromosomes in a creature can ever result in a positive beneficial mutation. Any time there’s a change in the number of mutations in humans it results in serious birth defects, often rendering the individual sterile.
The other thing is is that DNA appears to be resistant to major changes.
Twin Strands Of DNA Seek Each Other Out
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1961038/posts