So for you, "macroevolution" means evolution of new genuses & above? I ask because the standard definition is evolution of new species & above.
So you're saying that chimps & gorillas are the same "kind"? What about chimps & monkeys? What about chimps & humans? What about chimps & lemurs?
Generally, what's the magic biological barrier that allows the evolution of new species, yet prevents the eventual evolution of new genii?
Micro evolution in my view does NOT even need a new species to arise in order to have occured. A shift in gene frequences in a given population is microevolution. New species arising by "splitting"; the loss of common genetic information that would allow two subpopulations to interbreed is also microevolution.
Marcoevolution, which my dictionary defines as "evolutionary change involving relatively large and complex steps", is differnet. I would adjudge marcoevolution to have occured if complex new structures arise in an organism. NOT a LOSS of function, as in a blind, white cave fish speciating from normal ones, but rather a gaining of structures the organism never had the orignal genes for. For example, the continuous-throughput resparitory system of birds arising from the in-out system of all other vertebrates.
To stretch it out to its maximum extent, I think mutations could in theory produce new species with new information ;but only so many combinations of mutations are possible while still enabling one to have a workable creature.
For example, the experiments done with fruit flies showed that, far from evolving into novel new organisms, or even novel new mutations, THE SAME SET OF MUTATIONS KEPT ARISING OVER AND OVER AGAIN. It would seem that there are only so many ways to scramble the genes of a fruit fly and stll get a functioning creature of any type.
From these established facts, I would suppose that similiar limits would apply to more complex organisms.