CRR writes:
The differences between the human and chimp genomes constitute a "statistically significant difference in functional information".
Then all evolution needs to produce is a difference in order to produce macroevolution. It doesn't need to produce an increase as you define it.
Since you and Percy have agreed that both humans and chimps have lost a large number of genes since the hypothetical common ancestor you should be arguing that this constitutes a "statistically significant loss in functional information".
Where did we say that there was a loss of a large number? You are putting words in our mouth.
Also, you are focusing just on the losses. You are ignoring all of the other changes in each genome.
Since this requires no statistically significant increase in functional information it would be microevolution.
Humans evolving from an ape-like ancestor is microevolution?
We could also compare the human genome with the lamprey genome. We will also see that there has been loss in both the human and lamprey lineages that lead away from that common ancestor. Does this mean that humans evolving from a fish-like ancestor is microevolution?