I regularly encounter students who believe humans came from amoebas and when asked why they often say Macro-Evolution has been scientifically proven.
Macro-evolution is defined as evolution at or above the species level, which leads to the problem: Scientific evidence does exist for speciation at the Biological Species Concept (BSC) level, but not for all species concepts and only if a helpful definition is employed. Lions and tigers are considered different species and have been know to reproduce--sometimes with fertile offspring. Therefore, what benefits are there to such a broad category as macro-evolution?
The distinction between lions and tigers is so much smaller than feathered vs. scaled creatures! Surely the current definition of macro-evolution is overly broad and confusing to newcomers. Only the fuzzy edge of the macro-evolution definition has been proven. Proving that 1 inch of a yardstick exists does not prove that the rest does. There is a distinct lack of rigor to the statement that "macro-evolution has been scientifically proven."
Surely the definition of macro-evolution could be chopped in half with the goal of distinguishing between relatively trivial changes (Lion vs. Tiger, but beyond micro-evolution) and relatively non-trivial distinctions (either at and above the genus or the family level). The "trivial" changes could be termed "Middle Evolution" and work something like this:
1.) Middle evolution: evolution at or above the species level, but below the family level.
2.) Macro evolution: evolution at or above the family level.
Substitute the word genus for family in the above definitions if that seems better. I admit that line would be somewhat arbitrary, but would not the term "Middle Evolution" be informative?