Try giving the matter a tad more thought and reading the post before responding so quickly. Quick can be foolish. Macro evolution has NOT been observed.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1343600/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1343600/posts
Read 'em and weep.
That depends on your definition of 'Macro-evolution'
If you define it as scientists do, then it has been observed many times.
If you define it as many AntiEvos do, as a severe saltation event such as a cat giving birth to a dog then no Evo ever claims that would happen.
If you define it to be a dramatic change in a lineage during a large expanse of time, and through many generations and cumulative changes, such that the original species would be placed in a different taxonomic classification above the species level than the umpteenth descendants would, then you are correct. We have not been observing species long enough. However direct observation is not the only type of 'observation' used in science, in fact it is less prevalent than indirect observation and inference, which is part of our evolution knowledge base.
I didn't need to give it thought. Macro Evolution is a canard term thought up by creationists, and it basically asks for a single person to stand around and wait a few billion years to observe a tube of chemicals changing into humans. It's a term that is parroted by creationists, and no matter how many times it is explained, it keeps coming up.