Your entire "logical argument" is a personal choice - self-admittedly uninformed - of whom to believe among some authorities found in a biased selection from the historical record. That is bad enough. Worse:
I've admitted to being objective. My "arguement" focuses on the contradictions which none, namely you and your compatriots and the greater scientific community cannot answer. Namely the probability of thousands of necessary coincidence coalescing equating to impossible. If this is error then there must be updated calcuations that illistrate this. Curiously, I've found none.
My "argument" focuses on the Driving force of evolution. It is necessary to identify this for to establish it as real giving the theory substance. The known Laws of science have defined Gravity and isolated it's source, the laws of motions are reproducable and testable as a property of matter. They've been define and isolated over and over again. Yet while we can't identify the force that convey gravitational force we still have a source, it's still one of the most predictable action and reactions in the universe which lead to the discovery of many planets and phenomenon.
What we have with macro evolution is observation. Nothing has been obserered or isolated. We study effects and draw conclusions. The evidence and the facts do not support those findings.
Natural Selection is real. It has been observed. It is both a positive and negative force in animals, meaning what has occured in a family group of animals can be reversed.
Mutations are harmful and the introduction of them for a hundred years has been known to damage DNA to a degree approaching 99% of all mutations. That is a known and undisputed fact. EVolution proposes a reversal...that this downward trend eventually builds up and alters a speices instead of the logical conclusion...causing it's extinction.
Survival of the Fittest is a curious theory. It begins the path of ignoring probability and chance. From first glance the idea is that the strongest specimen survives. However many times in nature it is not a matter of strength. Sometimes its numbers, sometimes it's chance, in the case of mass extintions it's none of those factors. While existing to pass on stronger genes makes a lot of sense in the short term it makes little sense when applied to the greatest of life on the planet...human beings...who dominate this planet yet might vs might man is clearly not the fitest. Evolutionist say that our brains made the difference for the first time acknolwedging some other fact other than being fit. However it is a trend that is not marked in life. Animals are certainly intelligent to there own right but while they have the intelligence it doesn't progress the speices...Apes are capable of learning from humans, language and therefore mental expression but the advancement seems walled. Even to being passed down to the next generation. Without assistance these animals gain no further knowledge.
The historical record involved is irrelevant to the original matter, which was the validity of the micro/macro distinction. That irrelevancy was the error referenced. I do not know why you can't find it - my first guess is that you are not acquainted with the basics of scientific investigation and theory, and so cannot recognize invalid arguments in that arena.
I wouldn't try so hard If I were you. The answer is right before your eyes. The first guess to any question is very often wrong and this is no exception. The distinction between the two has been clear at the outset that one is observed the other is so distant and so unlikely it doesn't deserve attention, that is why I've focused on the probabilty. It is the very foundation for the theory of evolution and establishes should our attention should be occupied on an impossible occurence.
What the **** has prestige got to do with it. I am talking about competence. In the field of astrophsysics and cosmology Hoyle had this par excellence. In biology, and the application of probability to biochemical processes, he was a neophyte. His conclusions were wrong. Full stop. Period.
Refrence your accusation otherwise you wish me to establish the truth based on your word alone. Your word alone is a prestige, a self authority, that is attached to no known published work, nor is your identity identifiable. Stopping to address whether or no your accusation is valid must be followed by a source.
The focusing on Hoyle seems futile others have calulated similar probabilities and they match Hoyles figures leading us into the impossible. There are enough agreeing figures (such as those stated) that it does warrant pause on considering evolution (macro) as valid theory.