Good day to you.

Explain to me how one can discuss a science without discussing the science? You say “things you know mixed with what you know for a fact is false…” In short, it appears you’ve already made up your mind on this, and all the rest is merely verbiage leading nowhere.

Oh, something from a good science education as well: if you make a claim or claims such as you have, it is incumbent on you to prove you are correct, not demanding everyone else show you where you are wrong.

And so, that being said and done,in response to your last question, no Sir, why don’t *you* do so.

And Last Angry Man, Arrrrrrggghhhhhhhhhh! Your rambling on and on about things I already know mixed with what I know for a fact is false is going to make me crazy!!! I have to wonder whether the straw blows out of you when it gets windy or you’re just another victim of the half-baked science education that is still the national standard.

I’m still waiting for a scientific response to the science I presented. At least define your terms by explaining the origin of the phenomena scientists call “intelligence” and how the mechanism works.

Yes, that’s how scientists use the terms. Microevolution is evolution within a gene pool, macroevolution is evolution in separated gene pools, which typically means at or above the species level. I’m well aware of that.

What I’m interested is the creationist usage, because they seem to think that one happens and the other doesn’t, but since we know that they both happen as the scientists define them, then the creationists must mean something else. But they never say exactly what.

“When sleep or hide makes the difference in MACROEVOLUTION”

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/35/E56.extract

From Wikipedia:

“Macroevolution is a scale of analysis of evolution in separated gene pools.[1] Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution,[2] which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

To scientists, evolution is evolution. It is creationists who try to put some barrier into evolution, dividing “microevolution” (which they sometimes call variation or adaptation) from “macroevolution,” and maintain that the former happens while the latter does not. However, they don’t actually define what they mean by those terms, or what the barrier is between them.

“I insist that we do not conflate the two for the purposes of our discussion, because as I said, no one doubts variation.”
But what we were talking about before IS evolution. You seem to grant that evolution happens (which you want to rename as ‘variation’ or adaptation’), but that there is a limit. It stops somewhere, somehow. Where does it stop, and how?

“It was discussed above what it would take to disprove evolution (may I say again, macroevolution). I submit that nothing will disprove evolution, because the worldview will remain intact and the contrary information will simply be incorporated into the framework.”
It’s not a worldview. It’s a scientific theory pertaining to one particular part of nature: biological diversity. In science, the theory has to explain the evidence. As new evidence is found, the theory has to change to accommodate it, or be overturned in favour of a better one. But of course the new theory has to explain all the things the older one did, and be testable, etc.