There is no theory of macroevolution.
Micro and macro are the same process.
Your argument is entirely semantic. Someone who believes in micro but not in macro belives in limited variation. IOW, no descendant of a bird will ever not be a bird, etc. But, you knew that.
Your argument is entirely semantic. Someone who believes in micro but not in macro belives in limited variation. IOW, no descendant of a bird will ever not be a bird. A literalist also believes that every descendant of a bacteria is a bacteria. But, you knew that.
There is no theory of macroevolution.
Micro and macro are the same process.
B: Sorry Shubi, but this requires a bit more explanation. It is a source of confusion, not only for creationists, but for scientists as well.
B: Macroevolution is concerned with the splitting of lineages and long term trends in the fossil record. To explain some of these trends, GOuld, Eldrgidge, Stanley and others have proposed processes which operate on top of the microevolutionary processes with which you're familiar. The most often written about one of those is "species selection". Species selection is anologous to the selection that takes place within a population, but on the level of species. Species which are more fecund (in terms of spawning new species) will influence subsequent evolution more, than species which are not prone to splitting. Other things which effect the course of evolution, include macorevolutionary processes like "mass extinction".
B: What it boils down to, to a certain extent, is different levels of abstraction. For example, all chemical processes are ultimately reducible to the laws of quantum mechanics. This is why Physicists often joke that Chemistry is a solved problem. On the other hand to describe a simple chemical process such as dissolution of salt in water on a purely quantum basis would tax even the largest supercomputers. If you want to understand things like that, chemistry is the appropriate level of abstraction. You won't make much headway if you use QM, even though at its most basic level this process is governed by QM.
B: GOuld and others argue (and correctly IMHO, if that has any weight) that trends in the fossil record require a different level of abstraction to be explained rather than using microevolution. Still, one aspect of macroevolution, speciation, is indeed reducible to microevolutionary processes. But macroevolution is more than just *speciation*. Creationists caricature this difference as meaning micro and macro are completely different and unrelated processes. I hope I've been able to illustrate why this is false, and how micro and macro are related, and how they are different.
B: For more information, I suggest "Macroevolution" by Steven Stanley and "Extinction" By David Raup. After reading those, you will certainly be up to speed on this issue.