Thanks Russ, but wrong.

Quote
Not true.
Micro-evolution (which is not evolution at all but a form of adaptation) expresses attributes that are already expressed in the genes.
So, there is all the difference in the world between the two. In fact, they are as different as creationism and evolutionism.
Curiously YOU are not a biologist, and biologist get to define the terms used in their science. We've been over this before: you get to use the definitions used in the science or you are talking nonsense. At best. Here is a refresher of what evolutionary biologists say that evolution is, with "micro" and "macro" included:

From The University of Michigan Biology Dept.:
Quote
Definitions of Biological Evolution

We begin with two working definitions of biological evolution, which capture these two facets of genetics and differences among life forms. ...

Definition 1:

Changes in the genetic composition of a population with the passage of each generation

Definition 2:

The gradual change of living things from one form into another over the course of time, the origin of species and lineages by descent of living forms from ancestral forms, and the generation of diversity

Note that the first definition emphasizes genetic change. It commonly is referred to as microevolution. The second definition emphasizes the appearance of new, physically distinct life forms that can be grouped with similar appearing life forms in a taxonomic hierarchy. It commonly is referred to as macroevolution.
Notice that these two definitions look at the same process from different levels, one genetic and one looking at the broad spectrum of life and all it's diversity.

Quote
If you're going to be intellectually honest, ...
Since you raise this subject, then it is fair to point out that if you are intellectually honest you will

(a) learn and use the biological science definitions of evolution,

(b) recognize, as many other creationists do (including AiG) that evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generations to generations - is an ongoing process in all life today,

(c) recognize that speciation - the division of a parent population into non-interbreeding daughter populations - is a process that has been observed many times, in the field as well as in the lab,

(d) agree that the issue is NOT whether evolution and speciation are natural processes that occur in the world today, but that Common Ancestry is the issue: how many and how long ago, and finally,

(e) that the natural history of this planet provides information, objective evidence, that shows what actually occurred, so this can be studied to determine the reality of the diversity of life on earth.

And you might start making posts that aren't full of ad hominems and other logical fallacies, but that may be too much to ask for in one go.

Quote
... you have to—at the very least—admit that science does not know if these expressions already exist.
Actually, experiments such as the ones Russel2 has discussed do provide that information, and the conclusion is no, there is no pre-adaptation reservoir of information to tap into. Some die and some don't, yet both come from the same parent, and the parent population dies when subject to the T4 Phage.

Quote
Your position is (again) based on mammoth assumptions.
Again, this is false. Evolution Science is based on evidence: the everyday evidence of changing hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation -- the fact that there is not a species living today that is not undergoing evolution, and the historical evidence we have from the fossil record, etc.

Quote
This is a 10-minute video demonstrating how the compliant media is working together with pop-science to rescue evolution. This video reveals the blatant retreat underway from evolution's original claims.
Sadly such video's are absolutely worthless sources for providing information about the real world, as they have the factual foundation of science fiction, and anything can be made up to look convincing.

The way you judge the validity of theories is by testing them against the objective evidence of reality.

Quote
This video provides scientific information directly from a space sciences engineer that strongly evidences creation. He continues by providing statements by evolutionists that clearly reveal their inability to reconcile even the most fundamantal scientific information regarding our solar system. An excellent video for all to watch.
And this highlights another common misconception people have about science: that having evidence for a concept is enough. You can find evidence that the earth is flat, but that does not make it so.

Sadly, the problem is that you need to explain all the evidence, including the evidence that seems to contradict your position.

Tanned people having white babies contradicts your previous claim that tanning was hereditary. Instead skin color of offspring correlates with hereditary traits for skin color of the parents, showing that the skin color of the offspring is inherited in the genes from the parents.

You have an opportunity to learn something about reality. Will you take it?

Enjoy.