You are comparing apples to oranges here. History was witnessed by someone and the humanities are not science. But since you bring up the subject of observation, clearly history is actually observed by someone and then at that time a record is made. Macro-evolution on the other hand is not witnessed by anyone but people study something past tense and render an opinion as to what they see.
I am willing to believe that species can change to adapt but the fossil record can only be interpreted to mean one thing or another, and that opinion changes from time to time. And there is a huge difference between micro and macro evolution. once does not lead into the other (unless you assume).
People witnessing events in history can falsify "original" records much easier scientific evidence can be falsified that can be reviewed with secondary opionions over and over. Therefore I believe scientific evidence represented by fossils over human "history" any day.
As far as a difference between so-called "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution", the only real difference is time. There is no Creationist theory even attempts to explain how mutations stop at some arbitrary "species" boundary. There is no Creationist theory on what exactly differentiates one species from another.
I suppose that's to be expected, since Creationists do no real scientific work on their own. They merely research traditional science done by others and attempt to poke holes in it.
The Creationism gig reminds me of the french guy who claims that 9/11 was a CIA plot, and he "proves" it by poking holes in evidence collected about 9/11. Kennedy assasination plots are similar. Finding "missing links" to gripe about about gun firing speed, etc.