When reviewing Science texts, some good non-evolutionists dis­ting­uish "micro-evolution" below the species level (which they accept) from "macro-evolution" above the species level (which they reject). Evol­utionists seldom stress this "micro-/macro-" distinction.

Instead, evolutionists say all "change over time" or "descent with modification" is evolution. This lets evolution mean two different things: shifts in gene frequency (e.g., peppered moths), and increases in net genetic complexity — one term for two separate concepts.

Why do evolutionists so define evolution? For the free-rider effect. Development of molecules to man gains plausibility by association if it falls under the same evolutionary rubric as simple genetic drift. But consenting to such forensic sleight-of-hand is folly.

It is folly tactically and scientifically. It puts you on the defensive play­ing your foes' game, which you should avoid. It spares evolu­tionists' weakness, which you should exploit. Evolution involves increased net genetic complexity. Subspeciation does not.

Subspeciation is not "micro-evolution." Pre­tend­ing that it is, rewards evolutionists for defi­ni­tion­al bait-and-switch. They will claim "macro-evolution" is just "micro-evolution" extended. If they define the terms of debate, your neck is in their noose.

Evolution requires increased net genetic com­plex­ity: between the first cell and Einstein there must be new genes. This definition stresses the failure to identify a mechanism for increasing net genetic complexity, which lets you control the discussion.

Newtonianism without the mechanism of gravity
would have been nothing.
Evolution lacks a mechanism to increase net genetic complexity.
Therefore evolution is nothing.