I have never changed my position on what macro-evolution is.
Evolutionists have been trying since Darwin to confuse micro-evolution and macro-evolution. No one disagrees with micro-evolution - the small changes that species make to adapt to their environment. However, the meat of the theory of evolution is not small changes. Indeed, they should not even be called changes at all, they should be called transformations. The theory of evolution posits that step by step through the millenia since life began, species have been transforming themselves into new species each one more complex in their organisms than the previous ones. They posit that fish developed legs and started walking on earth. They posit that reptiles grew wings and became birds. They posit that reptiles again grew mammary glands, became live bearing, and turned themselves into mammals. These transformations by small adaptations were very questionable even when first made. However, genetics and specifically the discovery of DNA has made them quite impossible. Adaptations can occur by single point mutations in a gene. Transformations require not just a totally new gene, but many new genes to be created to support those transformations. The impossibility of this happening by random mutations (and there can be no selection in the creation of a gene since there is no function until the gene is completed) is astronomical. The possibility of thousands of new genes being created for the millions of species living and dead is a total impossibility.
Speciation while a prerequisite to such transformations is not proof of macro-evolution. A species (especially with the loose terminology of evolutionists) can arise (according to evos) by merely being geographically isolated from the rest of the group (guess Robinson Crusoe was not a man anymore because he ended up in a deserted island), it can also (according to the evos) become a new species just because the bird-songs it sings are not recognized for mating by other individuals having all the same characteristics. The classic definition of speciation is the ability to mate and produce offspring. This however is not sufficient because the two species can still have essentially the same characteristics and still not be able to produce offspring with each other. In other words they will still be birds, they will still be fruit flies, they will still be fish. They can be the same in all essential characteristics and still not be able to produce progeny. This is still micro-evolution because the species, neither one, has acquired any new faculties, and has not become more complex in any way.
So to sum up. Macro-evolution is a transformation requiring new genes, more complexity and new faculties. In terms of genetics, it requires at a minimum the creation of more than one new gene. In terms of taxonomy it would require an organism to change into a different genus.
I can't remember and am too lazy to check. Have you always on these threads said Archaeopteryx is a dinosaur? So few of your brethren do. And how can there be any dispute at all over whether something is a dinosaur or a bird for gosh sakes?
Evolutionists do not use the terms micro- or macro-evolution! It is the same process. As for how structures arise (evidently one definition of "macro" evolution) they are modifications of existing structures. The eye is a modification of light-sensitive skin; the leg is a modification of a fin, which is a modification of muscle and bone tissue already present; bones are a modification of cartilage which is a modification of connective tissues, which are a modification of other tissues.
We have fossils showing the transitions from fish-to-amphibian-reptile-mammal, and from reptile-dinosaur-bird. In these fossils you can see the modifications of pre-existing structures. VadeRetro has posted the series showing the modification of the jaw bones of reptiles to be ear bones of mammals.
No organs or other systems spring full-blown over night. No evolutionist ever says they did. Neither does any evolutionist draw a distinction between micro- and macro-evolution. They are both the same phenomenon, with difference between "kinds" (whatever they are) arising out of the gradual genetic drift of species -- as each species moves farther from any others genetically, it takes on characteristics not shared by any of the others. Over countless generations these characteristics add up, making the critter not resemble some of its predecessors or their offspring.
Now, we've showed you what the fossil record shows. We've backed that up by observation. There are several recorded instances of speciation in our own historical times, as has been posted here time and again. We've run a thread on one observed mechanism for adding information to the genome -- that population of monkeys which has a duplicate gene in their genome that is slowly modifying into some other use. Believe it or not, scientists do not pull these things out of the air. If they did, they'd be laughed at by their more serious colleagues.
That's like saying that humans, chimps, bonobos and gorillas are "all primates." Actually, there is much, much more difference (both structurally and genetically) between an ostrich and a sparrow, or between a shark and a trout, than there is between a human and a chimp.
Anticipating your objection, I fully concede that there is a vast spiritual difference between humans and chimps, but that distinction is not in the realm of evolutionary science. My faith tells me that God created man in God's image, and that he did so from "the dust of the earth." Evolution tells me where that "dust" came from, and how that dust became (physically) human.