Regarding "macroevolution" this, and the long ages required, is my main complaint.(I am aware of the controversy!) Genetic diversity and polymorphism is observed and accepted; macroevolution, or one kind of plant or animal changing over long periods/universal common descent, into a completely different type, is not.<quoted text>
You are getting close to understanding evolution. Yes, microevolution has been the process behind common ancestry for 3.5 billion years. But macroevolution (as defined by creationists) is a strawman that is not supported by science. There's no evidence that supports the idea of speciation in one generation.
Speciation in one generation? Where did you get that idea? Creation science doesn't think you or anybody else beleives that. Are you talking about puncuated equilibrium vs. gradualism? I think even that theory requires a scale of tens or thousands of years. It seems you have some major misconceptions regarding creation science. Speciation can occur due to mutation or genetic drift and selection. Regarding speciation, there is allopatric speciation where two populations are separated and sympatric speciation where members have a genetic difference which develops into a different population. There is also adaptive radiation. Or perhaps you were referring to the Hardy-Weinberg Law of Equilibrium that says p^2 + 2pq + q^2 = 1 where p = T and q = t? This shows how recessive genes remains in a population from generation to generation with the qualification that there is no migration, mutations, selection, or genetic drift occuring. So please clarify.