@Niali: "There is no such thing as "Macroevolution." The concept was developed to legitimize a Straw Man argument exaggerating evolution to absurd proportions. Fundamentalists invented Macroevolution so they could poke fun at it."
I know this comment is years old, but it deserves correcting so the same mistake doesn't keep cropping up.
This is not true. The terms macro-evolution and micro-evolution were not invented by creationists.
The terms were coined by biologist and evolutionist Yuri Philipchenko, in 1927.
The terms were widely used by Theo Dobzhansky, a pupil of Philipchenko and co-framer of the "modern synthesis" (also called neo-Darwinism).
"Nothing in the known macroevolutionary phenomena would require other than the known genetic principles for causal explanation"
-- T. Dobzhansky, Genetics and the Origin of Species, 1951.
Of course, where we find Dobzhansky, we also find Ernst Mayr.
"Among all the claims made during the evolutionary synthesis, perhaps the one that found least acceptance was the assertion that all phenomena of macroevolution can be reduced to,' that is, explained by, microevolutionary genetic processes. Not surprisingly, this claim was usually supported by geneticists but was widely rejected by the very biologists who dealt with macroevolution, the morphologists and paleontologists. Many of them insisted that there is more or less complete discontinuity between the processes at the two levelsthat what happens at the species level is entirely different from what happens at the level of the higher categories. Now, 50 years later the controversy remains undecided."
-- E. Mayr, Toward a New Philsophy of Biology, 1988.
More recently, they were used by Nick Matzke and Eugenie Scott in a article for the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
"The microevolution/macroevolution distinction is particularly revealing. In evolutionary biology, microevolution refers to evolutionary processes operating within a species. Although scientists sometimes colloquially refer to macroevolution as “evolution above the species level,” this definition does not do justice to the complexity of topics included within the concept. Macroevolution refers to patterns that emerge as species and lineages branch through time, including the rate and pace of evolutionary change, adaptive radiation, morphological trends in lineages, extinction or branching of a lineage, concepts such as species sorting, and the emergence of major new morphological features (such as segmentation, or shells, or the fusion or loss of bones). Decades ago, creationists began to use microevolution and macroevolution idiosyncratically. Creationists' use of “microevolution” is not dissimilar to that of evolutionary biologists, although they apply it not just to species but to evolution within the limits of a specially created “kind” of organism. When ID supporters and other creationists claim to accept some evolution, they generally mean it in this limited sense of evolution “within the kind.” A larger distinction occurs in the creationist definition of macroevolution, which to them refers to (unacceptable) common ancestry of different created kinds. It also refers to the acquisition of major morphological features or body plan changes, also considered impossible without the direct involvement of God. Both creation science and ID approach the micro/macro divide similarly: microevolution is accepted, and macroevolution (their definition) is rejected."
-- Nick Matzke and Eugenie Scott, PNAS 104:8669-8676.
You are wrong, and perpetuating a myth as false as Darwin's deathbed conversion. Don't be like the fundtards, learn the lesson and stop.
Some other words creationists didn't "invent" - but do misuse - are Darwinism, Darwinist, Darwinian (as either adjective or noun) and evolutionist.
