What prevents micro evolution from becoming macro evolution

I'll put it in the most basic form I can think of.Both groups observe Mutations happening. Both group realize that these muations are copying errors during the replication of DNA.Both groups will observe that some of these mutations will become fixed in a population. This is what both will call micro-evolutionBoth group will observe that therefore, these copying errors will accumulate in a population, driven sometimes by factors such as natural selection, but also sometimes simply through genetic drift.But each group has a different opinion on the eventual outcome of all this accumulation of mutations:- Neo-Darwinian evolutionists will say that these will accumulate to the point that new features, organs, etc. will appear in the population, showing an ever evolving and changing trend in biological populations. This is what they will cal macro-evolution.- Creationists will say that these will accumulate to the point that the mutational burden will become much too high, and this will lead the population down a spiralling path to genetic meltdown. Macro-evolution will therefore never happen.Creationist will often complain when evolutionist use examples of micro-evolution to prove that macro-evolution will happen, because it simply does not discard the possibility that accumulating mutations could lead to genetic meltdown.Edited by slevesque, : Tried reformulating that opening line, thanks WK, my biology classes are getting a bit buried underneath my university courses.

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. 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) After only two pages of discussion, which include only two posts from a creationist ?Give me a break please.