I was honestly surprised when I read on this forum one day that some of my educated colleagues do not "believe in" "macroevolution" (the latter term actually be something of a new concept to me). Personally, I still don't understand what the real difference is between micro/macro. I understand that people use "macro" to describe formation of new "species" but it seems obviously clear to me that once enough microevolution has occured you can look at one creature and another and recognize one as a new species. Thus, macro is the sum total of microevolution.
Sure, macroevolution has not been "proven," per se - it has not been actually observed to my knowledge. But as a theory, it is almost universally accepted. The problem with the argument "it has not been proven" is that evolution is such a slow process that it would be impossible to witness. HOWEVER, the strength of the evidence that macroevolution is overwhelming. It is clear and convincing. There is no other rational explanation for the evidence. There is no evidence against it. Thus, although the concept may not reach the level of "proven" to some of you it is appropriate to consider it "certain" in the context of the evidence.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comd...eorytobetested
This is a great reference with cites to the particular evidence. If you are one of the holdouts on this issue, you really owe it to yourself to make sure you have considered the evidence. BTW, there is also a link on this page to a "young earth creationist" response to the evidence. There is also a rebuttal to the YEC's response.