Define "macro-evolution." Posit the mechanism by which "micro-evolution" ceases before becoming "macro-evolution." Once you've done this, we'll entertain your comments on the matter.
To the best of my knowledge, there is absolutely no proof of evolution occuring at the macro- level. We have observed it at the micro- level, as some species have undergone slight changes in color or size, but in the entire history of our observation of nature we have never ever witnessed, nor have evidence, one species completely changing into another.
The entire history of our (carefully recorded and scientifically analyzed) observation of nature has lasted, at the outside, 500 years (that's being generous). The sort of speciation to which you refer takes place over thousands or tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands (or more) of years (except at the microbial level).
Time is the key.
No one's observed it because it takes millions of years to change from one species to another. No one's ever observed any major climate change or continental drift either, yet we can be reasonably confident that both have occured in the past.
Well this shows that you don't fully understand the processes that cause the descendants of species to gradually retain or lose characteristics over time, or the lengths of time involved. Yes it does sound silly when you try to imagine one species, "changing into another" but that's not what happens.
The process that has created the myriad of amazing life forms on this planet is a wondrous gift from our Creator, and it fits perfectly within my deeply held Christian Faith.
You have a better explanation? Please provide proof.
Then you need to correct the paucity of your knowlege. Shared endogenous retroviruses *alone* are "proof of evolution occuring at the macro-level", and "prove" the common ancestry of humans and other primates, as well as entire families of mammals.
And there are dozens of other lines of evidence supporting it as well.
In the immortal words of Red Skelton, "little do you know how little you know".
We have observed it at the micro- level, as some species have undergone slight changes in color or size,
And *much* more. The observed changes go far beyond mere "slight changes in color or size".
but in the entire history of our observation of nature we have never ever witnessed, nor have evidence, one species completely changing into another.
False. In the "entire history of our observation of nature" mankind has witnessed wolves becoming dogs. Yes, they're still canids, but they're no longer wolves, they are a new species -- that's "one species completely changing into another". The same is true of countless food crops, which are now different species (and vastly different) from the wild plants they originated from.
As for your "nor have evidence" assertion, see the above link, and also this one, just for *starters*. There is an *overwhelming* amount of evidence. Meet me at any good research library and I could literally bury you in it.
There are so many flaws in this "law" of evolution that I cannot help but laugh hysterically at anyone who takes this seriously as an explanation of the generation of species.
Feel free to state some of these alleged "flaws", so that I can show you -- with evidence -- where you're mistaken, and can "laugh hysterically" at your lack of knowledge.
For starters, there is no such thing as the "law" of evolution. If you can't even get the scientific terminology straight, how can you hope to handle the more complicated concepts?
Finally, a suggestion: Looking to creationist sources for an honest evaluation of the scientific basis for evolution is like asking Michael Moore for an introduction to conservatism.