This page is provided to answer a specific question, but don't get tied up in detail and forget where you are going. You get past the questions/attacks so you can proclaim the Gospel. It is the proclamation of the Gospel, not argumentation, that transforms minds. See Give Them the Gospel.

Here is what an Atheist said:

"Micro and macroscopic Evolution are the same process. This is "self-evident" by their definition. The only reason macroscopic Evolution is disagreed with by believers is because they don't like the idea of having a common ancestor with our felloe [sic] Hominids, but can't deny the effectiveness of vaccinations."

The changes would need to be gains in new innovative genetic information of the type needed for even the smallest advance in so-called molecules-to-man evolution, not losses. However, we never observe spontaneous generation of information from non-information. Even if there were examples of new innovative genetic information of the type needed for even the smallest advance in so-called molecules-to-man evolution being created from non-information, this might provide opportunity for a story like evolution to sound a bit more scientific, but it could not make it true. Where is the proof that it actually happened?

(Read the latest science on the subject: Without Excuse by Werner Gitt, a description of the scientific Laws of Universal Information. See also: Information Theory Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4. Here is another interesting article.) More is constantly being learned about information and about the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Evolutionists tend to hide in the weeds of the unknown with an argument from ignorance: "If you can't prove, by empirical science, that evolution is impossible, then it happened." By empirical science alone, we can only prove probabilities. The probabilities show the Big-Bang-Billions-of-Years-No-Flood-Molecules-to-Man story to be a bazaar hypothesis, a story that is so improbable that it should not be considered. However, empirical science is not a tool that can prove anything to be true or false absolutely. For absolute proof, we have revelation. (See Basic and Concise Guide to Practical, Useful Logic and Reasoning). God says that He created everything. He is the One Who enforces the laws of nature. He is the One Who will judge all of us in the end. We know that because we know Him presonally through the indwelling Presence of Jesus Christ and the moment-by-moment instruction of the Holy Spirit.

"just because you are ill-informed doesn't mean it doesn't happen, new information is added to RNA all the time, down syndrome is party due to an increase in chromosomes, so guess what, added information happens all the time, and has been documented and observed. but I guess it's easier to parrot answer in genesis, then to go out and read a scientific paper."

The duplication of information creates no new innovative genetic information of the type needed for even the smallest advance in so-called molecules-to-man evolution. Neither does the reorganization of information. Even if there were examples of new innovative genetic information of the type needed for even the smallest advance in so-called molecules-to-man evolution being created from non-information, this might provide opportunity for a story like evolution to sound a bit more scientific, but it could not make the story true. Where is the proof that molecules-to-man evolution actually happened?

"Well molecules to man did take a long time. If you want to look for the reason life started though that's call abiogenesis, evelution [sic] just explains the diversity of life. Also you need to understand that there is [sic] four chemicals in DNA or letters, diffrent [sic] combinations of theses [sic] letters make diffrent [sic] genes depending on there order (like words), just because we have a language doesn't mean we arnt [sic] making new words all the time, the same goes for genes, the combinations of letters that do not make a difference may be passed down, the ones that hurt get weeded out, and the ones that help a species survival stick around. Please read up on the subject before making assertions about it."

That's an interesting story, but it is only a story. As stated, the duplication of information doesn't provide new innovative genetic information of the type needed for even the smallest advance in so-called molecules-to-man evolution. Neither does the reorganization of data. Molecules-to-man Evolution would require huge amounts of new, innovative data at each step. You say that it's a slow process but provide no feasible way for the process to proceed in the right direction. In other words, huge amounts of time will totally destroy order, complexity, and information. There is no evidence anywhere that time can produce increases in order, complexity, or new innovative genetic information of the type needed for even the smallest advance in so-called molecules-to-man evolution. See: Without Excuse by Werner Gitt, a description of the scientific Laws of Universal Information.

In fact, every instance of supposed increase of information that is used by Evolution's evangelists is an example of NO increase in new innovative genetic information of the type needed for even the smallest advance in so-called molecules-to-man evolution.  Evolutionist's claims for adding information fall into three categories.  These are the 3 Rs of Evolution: Rearrange information, Remove information, and Ruin information.  See: Is Antibiotic Resistance Really Due to Information Gain? The 3 Rs of evolution

This diagram shows that every change is going in the wrong direction.  Evolutionists try to imply that the changes that can be observed are micro-evolution.  Creationists sometimes argue that those changes have limits, so they could never have one kind of living thing change into another kind of living thing--which is true but it misses the point.  Since the argument misses the point, it is unconvincing to an Evolutionist because it doesn't answer their story.  They have a story that says that evolution takes place so slowly that large changes cannot be seen but only small changes can be seen.  This must be answered by saying that the changes are all going in the wrong direction.  The changes are all going away from molecules-to-man evolution.

The train analogy works well.  The evolution train is supposed to go from Missouri in central U.S. to California (evolution) on the West Coast.  However, it can never get their since the train is bound for New York (opposite of evolution) on the East Coast.  In our analogy, the West Coast would be evolution and the East Coast would be deterioration, as The Second Law of Thermodynamics, the Theory of Information, and all that we can observe of changes in living things from generation to generation would predict.  The train is going the wrong direction in the track.  It is not headed toward more new innovative genetic information of the type needed for even the smallest advance in so-called molecules-to-man evolution, that is, molecules-to-man evolution.  It is headed toward a loss of information, that is, destruction and eventual extinction--the opposite of evolution.

The use of the term, micro-evolution deceptively implies that small variations add up to large variations, which is a diversion from the point. The point is not the number of variations or the size of the variations. The point is that mutations, duplications, and any other changes do not add information. They remove information. Evolution would require that they add the right new, innovative information so that the resulting changes to the creature can be "selected" for by nature. Were evolution to have ever taken place, this new, innovative information would have had to have been created at each little step along the way . . . but we have done enough science on this issue to know that information is never added at all.

Ungodly people believe fabricated stories (evolutionism, old-Earthism, big-bangism, bibilcal-erroism, etc.) that are based on arbitrary assumptions (naturalism, materialism, uniformitarianism) and rationalizations. Evolution is merely a story--not a very convincing one. Even if it were a convincing story, perhaps you could show an example of order, complexity, or information being produced by natural means, that would only make the story of evolution more convincing. But, look at what the story of evolution is competing with. God says that He created. I, and millions of other Christians, hear His voice. Some of us walk closer to Him than others, but we all hear the same voice. Faith comes by hearing His voice. He shows us, through creation that He created it. He shows the same thing to you, of course, but you apparently refuse to acknowledge Him. Evolution is a lie. God cannot lie. He speaks truth to us in real time.

You have been working hard to try to convince people that molecules-to-man evolution is possible. Some people think that if they can show evolution to be possible, that means that it happened--which is insane thinking. You really need to show that it actually happened. Where is the proof that molecules-to-man evolution actually happened? Show the steps of your scientific experiment that shows that this has happened. Stories are very unimpressive in the light on an ongoing experience of millions of people who are living in reality, communing with the very real Creation God, Jesus Christ.