PZ Myers, over at Pharyngula had an interesting post and buried within is a nice synopsis of the whole Macro-evolution vs Micro-evolution artificial dichotomy so popular with certain folks, and you know who you are! I have stated repeatedly that historically microevolution was the study on evolution on micro-organisms and that Creationists made up this dividing line based on whether or not that can self-justify ignoring evidence. PZ puts it in a historical timeline that I find fascinating. While it wasn't called 'Macro' at the time, it was actually well supported decades before the evidence supporting what Creationists now call 'microevolution'. Like I said, with eyebrow raised in appreciation, "Fascinating!"
"The whole creationist version of the micro/macro evolution distinction is complete nonsense. Scientists do make the distinction, usually reserving macroevolution for the larger scale accumulation of change over time that produces new species or lineages, but they don't argue that one is unsupported speculation.
What you have to understand is that the concept of macroevolution came first, although it wasn't called that; it was just called evolution or transformation theory, among other things ("evolution" was a term that actually became popular relatively late). Darwin himself examined biology largely on a grand scale, looking at biogeography and populations and fossils, and making an argument on the basis of what we would now call macroevolutionary phenomena for changes in form of species over geological time. He wasn't alone, either; many other authors preceded him in seeing that the evidence supported a history of evolutionary change. What made Darwin particularly persuasive, though, is that he coupled the evidence of changing species to a hypothetical mechanism, natural selection. He didn't have the tools or the details to work out how heritable change was accomplished, however; that took the discovery of genetics and molecular biology to allow us to see how this 'microevolution' actually worked.
When creationists argue that they believe in microevolution, but that macroevolution is dubious, they've got it backwards. Large scale historical change was confirmed and thoroughly documented in the 19th century! Darwin was a bridge, who explained how small scale, natural processes could produce the known variation between species, and the triumph of 20th century biology was to confirm and expand upon our understanding of how those changes occurred. Neither macro nor micro evolution are speculative. Neither one is lacking in evidence."
Not much more needs to be said!