First, get it out of your head that there is some distinction between micro evolution and macro evolution. There is just evolution. Micro and macro are only terms we use to define scale. The difference between micro evolution and macro evolution is the same as microscopic and macroscopic. You can't accept microscopic things and deny the existence of macroscopic things.
The problem is micro evolution is the law of Bio Genesis whereas macro evolution is only theoritical, is not observed, and cannot be proven.
Second, bacteria will always be bacteria. Humans will always be humans. Whatever bacteria or humans evolve into will simply be a subset of bacteria and humans.
The above quote of yours is the law of biogenesis. By your own quote above, you are opposing yourself in the next quote below.
For example, the reason why we say humans and chimpanzees are both apes is because we both evolved from a common ape ancestor. And yes, even the birds you see today are still technically dinosaurs.
Still yet to be proven. So either bacteria will always be bacteria and humans will always be humans like the law of biogenesis says and even you said so too, OR bacteria will not always be bacteria and humans will not always be humans. See?
The use of microscopic to prove the existence of macroscopic things is hardly the same thing after all when it involves seeing them whereas we are talking about how the microscopic becomes the macroscopic as in micro evolution will become macroevolution if given enough time.
Lastly, the idea that "macroevolution" says that a species should evolve into some other laterally classified species is a strawman made up by creationists out of a misunderstanding of the Theory of Evolution.
Prove that creationists made that up while I point to an educational site at Berkeley explaining what macro evolution is:
What is macroevolution?
Macroevolution refers to evolution of groups larger than an individual species.
That means when a cow is no longer a cow that it cannot reproduce with said cow because it is an entirely different and larger animal.
Those who aren't vehemently opposed to science and are at least willing to accept a basic education in biology understand this.
They do oppose each other as your quotes do quite easily, because one can throw out the law of biogenesis if macro evolution is true, but it is not prove because it is not observed nor proven as easily as the law of Biogenesis is.
Remember the first law of thermodynamics? That nothing can be created out of nothing and nothing can be destroyed? Now apply that to your DNA. No genetic information is going to be added to your DNA to sprout wings. It cannot come out of nowhere and suddenly you are another kind of creature and thus no longer the former to be able to mate with the former kind to continue its lineage.
Example of this in cross breeding of species: the lion & tiger are close in relations and science cross breeded them together and got a liger, both make & female: BUT in spite of the fact that they normally do not breed together naturally, they are both impotent.
Now imagine cross breeding happening by chance? The horse & mule breeding are still overlooking the fact that the offspring is impotent.
Now what are the chances for a species to receive an extra genetic information added to its DNA to no longer be that creature, but another kind of creature? Zero. AND to have a member of the opposite sex to continue its lineage? Less than zero.
Waving a magic wand of millions of years for a gradual evolutionary change and yet still leaving its former kind behind that has not undergone the same change should be highly circumspect, but it isn't, because some people want to believe in the evolution theory as some of those people push it like a cult in science because they simply do not want to believe in God. The mistake in science is not seeing their athiestic point of view on the evidence whereas some believers in God see evidence for a world wide flood, but "science" hold it against the believers in God as a view that they want to believe in while failing to see the athiests doing the same thing.
Science are opposing themselves and they know it not.
The reservoir effect has been used by science to explain why certain fossil findings are having faulty datings as those in the water would have less exposure to carbon 14 to get an accurate reading and thus appear older than those exposed to the air. Yet they cannot apply that as to why the fossils records of that which was buried in sentiments is older than the 6,000 years Biblical record? That is an example of two ships passing each other in the night.
And with evolutionary blinders on: mass graves of marine fossils with whale bones have been found with fossilized animal bones on mountaintops in South & Latin America, Northeastern Africa, Turkey, & China are not being seen as evidence of a world wide flood.
Science explain the explosion of pre cambrian - cambrian fossils when one claimed it had to occur by a mass extinction,
Cambrian Period & Cambrian Explosion: Facts & Information
The middle of the Cambrian Period began with an extinction event. Many of the reef-building organisms died out, as well as the most primitive trilobites. One hypothesis suggests
that this was due to a temporary depletion of oxygen caused by an upwelling of cooler water from deep ocean areas. This upwelling eventually resulted in a variety of marine environments ranging from the deep ocean to the shallow coastal zones. Scientists hypothesize that this increase in available ecological niches set the stage for the abrupt radiation in life forms commonly called the
Cambrian Explosion.
The emboldened portion hypothesis supports the global flood too.
That article reported minor species fossilization, but they did not take in the full picture of other report findings elsewhere.
WHALE FOSSILS HIGH IN ANDES SHOW HOW MOUNTAINS ROSE FROM SEA - NYTimes.com
''For example,'' Dr. Novacek said, ''we found the oyster beds and sand dollars just beneath the lowest sediments containing land animals. At that point the water was shallow and receding rapidly - a time of transition from sea to land, as the land was thrust up by magma and the movement of tectonic plates.'' In more recent sediments, the group found species related to modern rodents, porcupines, rhinoceroses and camels. Among the many fossil curiosities they came across were ungulates (including a rabbit-like ungulate), marsupials and giant sloths.
Talk about clueless. Fossilized animal got buried in that same sentiment, but they want to infer the smaller marine fossils in the lowest sentiments as if it happened at a different time?
Not only did they fail to note that fossilized whale bones were not found in the lowest sediments, but they fail to combine other fossil reports to figure it out that both fossilization of land & marine had to have happened at the same time as other mass graves can be found at different locations over the world.
And they want to extrapolate a gradual transitional fossil happening over a period of time like millions of years. Under the hypothesis of a global flood mass extinction event with everything buried in water and sediments, is science accounting for the reservoir effect as to why fossils are older than they appear? Of course marine fossils would be "older" than the land fossils because of the reservoir effect, but that does not mean the event did not happen at the same time.
They even came up with many extinction events, but they do so by the age of the fossils.
Extinction
Owing to the incompleteness of our understanding of the fossil record, mass extinctions are harder to pin down than it might seem, and the task becomes more difficult the farther one goes back in time. Very ancient rocks are poorly represented today, so we cannot say with surety than a given assemblage went extinct within a geologically short interval or not; the critical horizon may simply not be available for sampling.
So it is not presently known for sure how many mass extinctions have occurred throughout the history of life on earth, and different authors offer varied interpretations. There is good evidence available for most of
Phanerozoic, however, and nearly every recent publication will list the following events as being of the greatest severity:
So like, the viewpoint of everything happening at once like a global flood is never considered in that article that would account for the various fossil datings due to the reservoir effect.
So evolutionary science does not know what it is talking about as they are like ships passing each other in the night only because they are presenting their individual findings in an evolutionary's point of view without taking in account of other "evolutionary" reports that opposes their individual findings & yet supports evidence of a global flood.
