[tongass kid]

Your belief depends on the definition of micro evolution. The term was introduced as an explanation for the variation in kind. Others have used the term to explain other events seen in nature. If you believe that micro evolution is variation in kind then there is not macro evolution as per the definition of micro evolution. In order to understand your leap from micro evolution to macro evolution we will need to understand your definition of micro evolution. I believe we can all agree that macro evolution is materialism through natural selection. The term micro evolution is more problematic. Thanks,tk

[Ira_Louvin]

Micro evolution is a term that was made up by creationist to explain away the fact of observed evolution in the lab. The only difference between “micro” and “macro” evolution is the amount of time involved.

[Stultis]

I believe we can all agree that macro evolution is materialism through natural selection.

Um, no. No, we can't.

In fact I've never once seen this proposed or employed as a definition of "macroevolution".

It isn't even coherent. For instance there's no way to operationally define "materialism," since it concerns philosophical views which may or may not be in the mind of the scientist; and which, even if present, may well have no effect whatever (and certainly no predictable or necessary effect) on how that scientist actually does science, e.g. how they employ and test scientific theories and principles.

The most common definition of macroevolution is "evolution above the species level," and therefore microevolution is evolution below the species level. IOW, if new species arise, then that's macroevolution by definition. If biological change occurs, but without breaking the species barrier, then that is microevolution by definition.

Creationists won't accept this definition (because few believe in fixed species, therefor this definition would make them macroevolutionists!) but it is nevertheless the most objective and widely accepted definition.