This is a distinction without difference. I could go on a "micro" trip to the corner store or a "macro" trip to the other side of the world. All that changes is the timescales required. There are swathes of evidence for """macro""" evolution, but the timescales involved are tens of thousands or millions of years. Can't run a controlled experiment on that timescale.

"MACRO evolution or one species becoming another"

That's a weird way of thinking about it. What actually happens is that one species splits into two, when two populations of the species are separated for long enough to make them incapable of interbreeding.

> MACRO evolution or one species becoming another. That doesn't happen.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by this?

What they mean is that since another argument is shot down, they have to move the goalposts and change the definition of what they actually wanted.

You show one species becoming another, they’ll complain about how it was done. Or how long it took, etc.

For instance, ring species are pretty good evidence of speciation. But that’s not good enough because all those animals exist right now.

> another argument is shot down, they have to move the goalposts and change the definition of what they actually wanted

Actually, a version of that is good part of the (scientific) game. Of course you have to criticize the theory, the experiments etc. Only, it has to be done in good faith - to look for the truth, not to defend a position.

The difference between Newton and Bohr, and Freud and Marx (to go for classical examples), is subtle, not gross. There is an entire Science, a whole field, about that.