Denying the clear, scientifically-accepted distinction between microevolution and macroevolution is an unwitting admission to the lack of evidence for the latter.
So...was this supposed to be aimed at me? I'm guessing you think that my earlier statement about micro vs macro being generalizations to help make it easier for us to understand is a 'denial', then? If so, what you fail to understand is that I wasn't denying the "clear, scientifically-accepted distinction" that you refer to. I'm well aware that scientists distinguish between the two, but it isn't because they're two entirely different things as a lot of intelligent design advocates would argue. The distinction between them is based on scale, nothing more - it's based on how we use them, not because there's some impassable barrier between them.
One involves minor changes, typically cosmetic variation, and has been known about for thousands of years.
The other involves the development of entirely novel traits and bodyplans, and remains more superstition than science.
If you can't distinguish between the two, it doesn't prove they don't exist. It does, however, prove you have no business partaking in this debate.
This is so badly wrong that your arguing it makes me wonder whether you
have any business participating in this debate.
Microevolution is differentiation within a species (not just "minor changes" as you claim), while macroevolution is differentiation that transcends a species (not "the development of entirely novel traits and bodyplans"). As an example of macroevolution, let's take the differences between the various species which are grouped under the felidae family. There are two sub-families, pantherinae
I don't know about you, but I certainly would not consider there to be any "entirely novel traits and bodyplans" within the pantherinae or felinae sub-families. Indeed, the genera and species within the felidae family are overall quite similar. Naturally, there are differences between them, but they are surprisingly minor, all things considered. Indeed, if we used your definitions, we might naturally conclude that all the different species within the felidae family came about due to microevolution
As the saying goes, the proof is in the pudding; the fact that there are less differences between the member species of the felidae family than between. say, a member of the felidae family and a member of the canidae family, is a very clear indication that evolution simply doesn't work by developing "entirely novel traits and bodyplans", but by making relatively small changes that add up over time, combined with barriers to reproduction that cause divergence. The last common ancestor between felidae and canidae lived around 40 million years ago, for example, and it's clear when you compare them that despite their differences, they're still more similar to each other than they are to other members of the placentalia subclass, from which they diverged.
So while you are correct that "the development of entirely novel traits and bodyplans...remains more superstition than science", what you have as yet failed to recognize is that this has nothing to do with evolution in the first place, because evolution never worked that way to begin with. Whether you're talking about microevolution or macroevolution, it has always worked through minor changes which add up over time, combined with divergences caused by reproductive barriers.