No, Macro-evolution is changing single cell to human.
At least in turns of a theory trying to explain where man came from .
When a fish turns into a Reptile, or a Reptile into a Mammal, then you have Macro-evolution. And also when one species of reptile turns into another species of reptile you also have macro-evolution.
Not if the reptile is still a reptile.
Unless you are just playing word games.
Is the Salamander still a reptile? There are about 500 species of salamander. In fact there are 10 different families of salamander.
Is it a reptile?
So do you believe one species of salamander turning into another species of salamander is possible? Is this an example of micro or macroevolution? Is one family of salamander turning into another family of salamander possible in your opinion? Is this an example of micro or macroevolution?
If it is still a reptile then it is a example of micro-evolution, not Macro, at least not in the sense that Darwanian evolution is attempting to allege that man came about, from single cell to man.
Do you accept that all salamanders could share a common ancestor and can be derived by darwinian evolution?
Salamanders share the common ancestor of reptiles and that is what they will remain.
That is not Darwinian evolution.
Man has the common ancestor of Adam and Eve.
That is an example, not a definition. The biological definition for macroevolution is change above the species level, and even many anti-evolutionists accept this (but they deny new species can evolve). That means one species of grass becoming another species of grass is an example of macroevoluion.
If it is still a reptile then it is a example of micro-evolution, not Macro, at least not in the sense that Darwanian evolution is attempting to allege that man came about, from single cell to man.
This implies that a snake turning into a T-Rex is not microevolution because it is still a reptile. I know you don't accept this, so your above explaination must be wrong. The problem is that you are not objectively seeking a definition. You are instead trying to define microevolution as "possible" and macroevolution as "impossible". The premise you start out with is that macroevolution, whatever it is, must be impossible in all situtations.
Salamanders share the common ancestor of reptiles and that is what they will remain.
Salamanders aren't just the same creature in a different size or color. Different species of salamanders differ in structure and organs. There is more variation amongst salamanders than amongst great apes (chimpanzees, humans, gorillas, etc). Chimpanzees and humans are in the same family. But there are 10 families of salamander, in fact there are 3 sub-orders. If you accept a new family of salamander can evolve, then there is no room to deny humans could evolve from a chimpanzee ancestor, as that would be evolution below the family level.