Macro-evolution requires new faculties, new capabilities, new genes. Speciation is very loosely defined by evolutionists and does not require new genes - as I have posted 3 times already. Do I need to post it a fourth time? If you disagree with my definition of macro-evolution why did you not show your disagreement with it the three times it was posted? (the last time in post#1652). See my comments there for a fuller explanation of my reasoning.
And I've already shown you evidence for all three. Whether you accept the evidence or not is irrelevant; the folks following this thread already know your tactics of ignoring the evidence or claiming to "disprove" it when you've done nothing of the sort. Hell, your entire argument against evolution has been reduced to bantering semantics.
Genus is basically defined by being the bin that lies above species. It's a beauty contest, as is family, order, you name it. OK, a phylum is supposed to have a unique body plan, although that's harder to pin down than it sounds.
Speciation means something in extant sexual species. (In the fossil record, it's back to being guesswork.) Everything above it is arbitrary mush for a long ways.
You have pegged your definition in mush.