Stuart Burgess's Ultimate Engineering (5-broom review)

You might have noticed the book (in the title) promoted on r/ creation; it's a new release published by DI. I decided to take a look-see.
Under the heading of:

Microevolution Does Not Cause Macroevolution

He writes:

Understand, doubts about microevolution’s ability to accumulate into macroevolutionary change are not restricted to the minds of wild-eyed creationists. “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (microevolution) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution),” commented University of Maryland developmental evolutionary biologist Sean Carroll in the journal Nature. “Outsiders to this rich literature may be surprised that there is no consensus on this issue, and that strong viewpoints are held at both ends of the spectrum, with many undecided.”^(25)

(25) being Carroll, Sean B. "The big picture." Nature 409.6821 (2001): 669-669.

Oh. I know Carroll's work. Let's see Carroll's article for ourselves, and continue where Burgess has cut the quotation, shall we? In bold, Burgess:

Outsiders to this rich literature may be surprised that there is no consensus on this issue, and that strong viewpoints are held at both ends of the spectrum, with many undecided. Traditionally, evolutionary geneticists have asserted that macroevolution is the product of microevolution writ large, whereas some palaeontologists have advocated the view that processes operating above the level of microevolution also shape evolutionary trends. Is one of these views wrong, or could they both be right?

Hmm. Now, how does Carroll end the opinion article?

The 'big picture' of evolution continues to grow, with diverse disciplines addressing biological mechanisms across many levels of organization (molecules, organisms, populations) and timescales. The subdivision of evolution into two scales no longer reflects our understanding of the unity and diversity of evolutionary mechanisms. However, more important than redefining macroevolution is recognizing that discipline- or scale-bound considerations of only one component of evolution, or of solely extrinsic or intrinsic mechanisms, are inadequate. Long-standing boundaries between evolutionary disciplines are dissolving, to allow richer concepts of evolution to emerge.

(emphasis mine)

Verdict: Occam's Broom 🧹🧹🧹🧹🧹 : DebateEvolution.

And a sky hooker engineer author.
It's truly sad than unsuspecting outsiders could be convinced by this dishonesty, then again it's on the self-proclaimed "skeptics" if they don't carry the skepticism to the dark-money funded DI clowns and check the sources.
How's that "creation research" coming along, boys? : DebateEvolution