It is enough to say that a phenomenon is empirical if it is verifiable by observation or by experiment. However, if you are referring to the theory that explains the phenomenon, then you might require that it be testable (or falsifiable), the experiments repeatable , and the results predictable.
OK, let me grant that to you. Now, the next question is, Is there any laboratory or field evidence that there is an average rise of genetic information in a group of newly descended species from their parent species? NONE!!! As far as I know, every known evolution of “new” species recorded and observed was the result of sorting or loss of information rather than an increase, or is the result of a gene switch being turned on or off, without a corresponding increase in genetic information. If you have different information, or you have the evidence that we are looking for, please present it.
Agreed. Therefore, any experiment you do in a dark cave that results in a loss of vision cannot be evidence for the evolution of the eye. You need to do your experiments outside the cave if you want to account for the evolution of the eye.
My concept of macro-evolution does not contradict yours, but does not ignore that complexity arises along with diversity.
FYI: Actually, Buffalo is a good researcher. I have clicked the heart on some of his posts.