[jennyp]

Micro-evolution, whether you like the term or not, is the observable differentiation within a species, and is rarely seriously debated. Macro-evolution, on the other hand, is evolution across family or phylum lines.

Why did you leave out speciation in your dividing line? You said microevolution is change within a species (which is true). This thread is all about the discovery of the evolution of a brand new species. Then you say macroevolution is the evolution of a new family.

Mainstream science calls change at the species level and above "macroevolution". Speciation is what has been observed here. That's macroevolution, because from now on the new species will only diverge further from its parent species.

[MortMan]

I am willing to admit I don't have a good, succinct definition of macro-evolution from a scientific dictionary, but hybrid speciation (the combination of two independent species' characteristics) is not substantial evidence of the ability to create new classifications of life-forms through minute evolutionary steps. It is the greater leaps in differentiation that are at question with regard to evolution versus creation, not the hybridization of compatible and similar life-forms. I'd be interested to know where your definition of macro-evolution comes from (no - I'm not being facetious - I'd enjoy a chance to improve my own knowledge on this subject)

Also, your assertion that "from now on the new species will only diverge further from its parent species" is supposition, unsupportable from the evidence in this article. Unless there is a connected trail of evidence concerning the continued divergence of one life-form from another, then the conclusion you have drawn is only a conclusion - not an established fact.

BTW - Thanks for replying with information - I often avoid these kinds of threads because I prefer at least semi-informed debate to the smug ranting these threads often devolve into.