Exactly. I've asked creationists on this forum more than once how "micro" cannot add up to "macro", what absolute barrier separates them. Haven't gotten an answer yet.
Lol., i can answer that.
Do you know anything about mathematics? For the record, i actually do believe the evidence has established that macro is micro but that is not a trivial result; it was a major revelation.
Who's claiming it was trivial?
Darwin gathered twenty yesrs of dsta on it. He also built on the disciveries of others. Further science showed he was right to some extent.
No argument. Science builds on its predecessors; even the failures serve as examples.
Imagine random vectors in three space where all the mutations only happen along the x and y axis. No matter how many mutations you get, the result of adding tgese vectors will always be in the plane
And this has what to do with your point?
The complexity of a human is immense. It is hardly obvious that a slightly directed random walk with natural selection could go from amoeba to us.
Not obvious, agreed. But the progression of life on this planet from simpler to more complex organisms is borne out in the fossil record, comparative zoology and genetics. No other explanation currently fits the evidence better.
So again, the question "how could micro not macro" lacks imagination. The reality is, a hell of a lot of hard work was done and is being done that seems to suvgest macro comes from micro. Future scientific findings may show this to be a simplification.
Lacks imagination how? And I don't really see an answer in your post. At least, one that disagrees with mine.