Yes, but note that Erwin and Valentine, in the passage quoted, indicate their view that such linear, additive processes do not seem to explain the Cambrian explosion.
It’s quite obvious that some long-term evolutionary change can be seen as small evolutionary change added up. I did not contest that. So, if you had written, “In many cases, macroevolutionary change is simply the result of microevolutionary change sustained for a long time,” I wouldn’t have objected. But you didn’t have the qualifier, “In many cases.” You had:
“Macroevolution is microevolution plus microevolution plus microevolution plus plenty time.”
Full stop. No qualifications. See your Post 1034 out of 1043 at:
It was that unqualified statement that I have been protesting. This should have been clear from the fact that it is the very first statement quoted from you in my column above.
Do you now agree that your statement:
“Macroevolution is microevolution plus microevolution plus microevolution plus plenty time”
lacks necessary qualifications, and would not be agreed to by all evolutionary biologists?
If you agree with that, then we have solved the problem raised by my column above, and can end the discussion peacefully.