If someone claims that the solution to a problem is incorrect, then they are obliged to offer a new solution to the problem.
That's false. Everyone knows it's false. The OP is based on a fallacy.
I just need to address this. Macroevolution isn't a
form of evolution or a different
type of evolution. It's a term used to describe what happens when a species evolves to a point where it can be convenient to suggest that it's sufficiently different from the original species to give the organism a new species name. To repeat that - it's a matter of convenience.
There are some differences that the lay person will simply not notice. But which are enough of a difference for the specialists in that particular organism to nominate a new species name. But, and this is the point which seems to have been overlooked - we are still talking about the evolutionary process itself.
So to nominate macroevolution as 'a problem to be solved' is meaningless. It might be a slip of the finger on the keyboard. But more likely is the result of a complete misunderstanding of the topic itself, because what is being said is that evolution itself is 'a problem to be solved'.
And then to go on to suggest that it needs a
solution simple exacerbates the original fault. The theory of evolution isn't a solution to a problem. It's an
explanation for agreed scientific facts. So anyone is free to suggest that the facts are in dispute - but they will have to give very good reasons for doing so. But you cannot say that the explanation for those facts is wrong without offering a better one.
Australia beat Germany in the semi of the Olympic hockey yesterday. That's the
fact. Can you dispute it? Well, it would be tough as it was broadcast live and we all saw it. So what was the
explanation for that fact? Well, we need a theory. And if the theory is generally accepted they had the best tactics then if you want to dispute that then you need a different explantion. It would be nonsensical to say 'No, they didn't win because of better tactics' and leave that comment hanging. You'll need to say 'No, they din't win because of better tactics...
they won because they were the fitter team'.
You need to replace the generally agreed theory (explanation) with another.
