http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/is-macroevolution-even-a-meaningful-term-its-time-to-ask/: Is “macroevolution” even a meaningful term? It’s time to ask.
Noone has been able to define macroevolution, so we can lay claim to the term for another interpretation.
The question of macroevolution has a decisive treatment in WHEE, and even more in DMR: descent of man revisited where the earlier term ‘eonic evolutoin’ becomes ‘macroevolution’.
This usage is applied to the ‘evolution of civilization and/or the evolution of man as ‘homo sapiens in formation’ to the conclusion of his speciation: the rise of civilization is defined as a part of that.
And this definition can help to give some meaning to the term because, 1. it is free from biochemical confusions, 2. the usage creates understandble meaning to ‘evolution on two levels’, macro and micro. We must suspect that ‘macroevolution’, as the representation of ‘speciation’ operates with ‘form factors’ unknown to us that are at a higher level than biochemical ‘evolution’.
Evolution chained to biochemical events has never made any sense. Time to change perspectives.