In fact, by analyzing electrophoritic separations of selected enzymes and studying DNA patterns, the two subspecies klauberi and eschscholtzi are different species by every definition. (Wake, Yanev and Brown, 1986) This poses a very interesting problem. Should the species Ensatina eschscholtzi be split into two or more species, or be considered a single species? If the species is to be split, where does one draw the line?Also posted earlier by VadeRetro in #819
But where would you draw the line? Why are they the same species if they can't interbreed? Or is there also another definition of species? Why can't the two populations that "close the ring" not interbreed?
So many questions...
In the salamander example you gave, scientists do not call them different species. The person who wrote the article seems to think so, but scientists at large have not yet considered them to be different species. So they clearly are not an example of macro-evolution.
As to where I draw the line, I have said it a few times on this thread (though not directly to you): 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.
As to my reasons for drawing the line there see post#1175.