If, by the term "macro level changes," you are asking about a leap from one species to another in a single generation, you're not talking about evolution. Rather, that's a creationist fantasy, promoted at creationist websites, to be hauled out and ridiculed whenever they want to convince themselves they're bashing evolution. If you imagine that evolution is like that, you've got some catching up to do. Seriously. Why not give it a try?
The Theory of Evolution. Excellent introductory encyclopedia article.
Introduction to Evolutionary Biology. Another good introduction.
The Pocket Darwin. Very good, easily readable summary.
I'm making no assumptions. I understand the issues at a high level.
Logical fallacy #6 in the evolutionist arsenal. Assume the person you are speaking with is completely undeducated so you won't have to answer the question. My question is simple and legitimate. Since it is a rhetorical "mate in 2" I'll just explain it.
If you insist that failure to be able to observe the proposed mechanisms of evolution producing macro level changes (regardless of the number of generations invovled) is NOT a weakness in the theory. Then logically, you have stated that ability to demonstrate this would not result in a strengthening of the theory. As a result, everything derived from fossil research is of no value either because all it does is give you at a distance what is lacking in direct observation.
NOTE...what I've demonstrated is not the orthodox evolutionary theory is incorrect, but that the theory, like any other has strengths AND WEAKNESSES. VV's original challenge to us could be construed to imply the theory has no weaknesses. Most hard core evoltunists will only make this concession behind closed doors with friends I guess. (Hence, admitting weaknesses to your friends but not your opponenets could perhaps be fallacy #7)