Macroevolution does not require the production of new organs. Even "new organs or features" is a misnomer since evolution is descent with MODIFICATION, not evolution of something completely new. For example, the legs of tetrapods are modified fins, not something completely new.
What macroevolution requires is the production of new species. For example, chimps and humans are separate species but no new organs or features had to evolve.
I wrote that opening post very quickly, and I knew this part would be cherry-picked a bit. If you feel you could write a more complete/accurate phrase, please do I could just edit my post and replace it.
But you have to realize that my statement isn't false: evolutionists do think these will accumulate to produce new features, organs, etc. and this would be described as macro-evo. It doesn't contradict that fact that major modification to previously existing structures would also fall into that category as well.
The millions of mutations that separate chimps and humans did not result in non-viable species, so obviously this burden has not occurred yet since chimps and humans shared a common ancestor.
I think we are talking more about observational science right now, observing present-day micro, and deciding if adding all this up could account for the macro that supposedly happened in our distant pass.
Because, supposing it can't, there are still two options:
-there are missing parts of the overall mechanism that we aren't taking into account
-Maybe all this supposed mcro never happened after all (I doubt any of you would consider this option, however)
Creationists need to move beyond "possibility". They need to show that it is an unavoidable consequence. They have failed to do so.
After only two pages of discussion, which include only two posts from a creationist ?
Give me a break please.