One of the questions that came up was about the claim that the term macroevolution is not a legitimate scientific term.    From Wordnik.com.  [Evolution News & Views] Reference

Talkorigins 'evidence for macroevolution' is a red herring.    From Wordnik.com.  [Demarcation as Politics] Reference

So the claim that macroevolution is possible is unfalsifiable?.    From Wordnik.com.  [When Mixing Science and Theology is OK] Reference

More response for Mung on that quote – the evidence for common descent and macroevolution is vast, across an enormous amount of data.    From Wordnik.com.  [But it's not Science!] Reference

Don't call macroevolution a fact when it is very much still a theory. bobdevo.    From Wordnik.com.  [Kirk Cameron attempts to debunk Darwin] Reference

2 You do not believe in "macroevolution" - the evolution of new species.    From Wordnik.com.  [CNN.com] Reference

What they refuse to believe is that new species can emerge (what they call "macroevolution").    From Wordnik.com.  [Archive 2001-12-02] Reference

Are you really claiming that the word "macroevolution" refers to change from simple to complex?.    From Wordnik.com.  [Sound Politics: More on Cantwell & ID] Reference

As for the idea of "macroevolution" that is an argument made by creationists who don't understand Darwin.    From Wordnik.com.  [Kirk Cameron attempts to debunk Darwin] Reference

Like "macroevolution" the term is of no use in science.    From Wordnik.com.  [digg.com: Stories / Popular] Reference

The criticisms of "macroevolution" in her letter are absolutely heinous, and oft refuted.    From Wordnik.com.  [Pharyngula] Reference

He talks about "macroevolution" and the complexity of DNA and the impossibility of all of these arising by "pure chance.".    From Wordnik.com.  [Planet Atheism] Reference

"macroevolution" the term is of no use in science.    From Wordnik.com.  [Original Signal - Transmitting Digg] Reference

"macroevolution," but rather it's the ScienceDaily press release's misleading title.    From Wordnik.com.  [Evolution News & Views] Reference

Whale origins as a poster child for macroevolution.    From Wordnik.com.  [Archive 2006-02-01] Reference

Evolution at multiple levels: micro to macroevolution.    From Wordnik.com.  [Evolution] Reference

This is presented as a counterexample to macroevolution.    From Wordnik.com.  [An Historic Tidbit] Reference

One supports microevolution, but discounts macroevolution.    From Wordnik.com.  [Crackpot Christians Blame Darwin for Hitler] Reference

What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution.    From Wordnik.com.  [Sound Politics: More on Cantwell & ID] Reference

There is an irrefutable lack of evidence for macroevolution.    From Wordnik.com.  [The President and Intelligent Design] Reference

Except I wasn't talking about common descent and macroevolution.    From Wordnik.com.  [But it's not Science!] Reference

"It's unclear how one could prove macroevolution to be 'impossible'".    From Wordnik.com.  [When Mixing Science and Theology is OK] Reference

A Precambrian rabbit wouldn't prove macroevolution to be impossible.    From Wordnik.com.  [When Mixing Science and Theology is OK] Reference

In the light of epigenetics, old views of macroevolution must change.    From Wordnik.com.  [Archive 2009-01-04] Reference

I'm reminded of one of your examples of macroevolution from your blog.    From Wordnik.com.  [Ancient Predator Revealed!] Reference

At the level of the cited study, just what would constitute macroevolution?.    From Wordnik.com.  [The Memory Hole] Reference

I think most scientists are quite skeptical of macroevolution to begin with.    From Wordnik.com.  [The Memory Hole] Reference

I said that it wasn't clear how macroevolution could be shown to be impossible.    From Wordnik.com.  [When Mixing Science and Theology is OK] Reference

So, the differences between microevolution and macroevolution seem unimportant to me.    From Wordnik.com.  [Archive 2001-12-02] Reference

It would raise serious questions about whether all lifeforms developed via macroevolution.    From Wordnik.com.  [When Mixing Science and Theology is OK] Reference

As Eugene G. Windchy seemed to indicate: microevolution is observable, macroevolution is not.    From Wordnik.com.  [Why is evolution considered a theory? ? « Technology Literacy Help « Literacy Help « Literacy News] Reference

BTW, Benji, FYI, most scientists accept macroevolution for the well-supported fact that it is.    From Wordnik.com.  [The Memory Hole] Reference

"The rise of birds and mammals: are microevolutionary processes sufficient for macroevolution?".    From Wordnik.com.  [2006 March - Telic Thoughts] Reference

I think that Darwin's theory of macroevolution is plainly wrong, on strictly scientific grounds.    From Wordnik.com.  ["Blog of the Year," indeed.] Reference

Really, there is absolutely no evidence for evolution (macroevolution, common descent) whatsoever.    From Wordnik.com.  [Barbara Forrest Speaks Out] Reference

I'd say that if such structures were to be found in every species, macroevolution couldn't have happened.    From Wordnik.com.  [When Mixing Science and Theology is OK] Reference

However, I'm not going to pursue this topic any further, as I agree that macroevolution indeed did happen.    From Wordnik.com.  [When Mixing Science and Theology is OK] Reference

It seems to me that if all species possessed such 'unevolvable structures' that Wills talked about, then macroevolution didn't happen.    From Wordnik.com.  [When Mixing Science and Theology is OK] Reference