Unfortunately - that is not accurate.
If you take a look back, I have been pointing out that your objections and explanations to macroevolution are all based on a very simplistic and naive understanding, each one of your objection were either based on the assumption that big physical differences needed big genetic changes (this is untrue), or that major structure changes required “new” sets of genes to make them (this is also untrue).
I pointed out how it does actually work: (small changes in major gene groups - like Hox genes - produce major phylogenies changes), I explained why it works that way (because development of an organism is primarily the same basic genes and proteins being regulated by a series of simple regulatory genes, meaning changes to the protein, or the more fundamental regulation towards the beginning of the development of the organism has a much larger downstream impact), and I’ve provided a fairly comprehensive set of supporting facts with them (same fundamental cell types, similar body plans for all terrestrial vertebrates, similar developmental patterns, etc).
I also pointed out at times that what you’re claiming is being relied on isn’t even being relied on. In that Macroevolution in its most normal usage doesn’t rely on major phenotypic changes in a single generation - as I explained by listing the changes required to go from fish to amphibian, and from land mammal to whale.
Even though I have gone to great lengths to explain both what the actual science is, and why your understanding of it is wrong, your reply dujour has been to generally re-assert that your interpretation of genetics is correct, and provide a different subtle argument based on that interpretation, rather to defend and justify your interpretation.
In this regard, you are confusing me continually drawing you back to your faulty understanding with “repeating myself”.
I hope that clears things up.
