First, evolution *only* has to do with biology. It has nothing to do with the origin of the universe or the formation of the earth, nor does it have anything to do with how life ultimately originated
Ok, I agree Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of earth or the universe, but it does have everything to do with origin of life and developement of life.
Secondly, "macro" and "micro" evolution are not terms used in the scientific community, and only really have meaning to anti-evolutionists. As far as science is concerned, the difference between the two is of degree, not of kind.
Whether used in the scientific community or not, I do not care, but there is a difference in kind betwee macro and micro evolution.
In science, macro at the beginning of a word just means "big", and micro at the beginning of a word just means "small" (both from the Greek words). For example, a macrophage means a bigger than normal cell, but it is only a few times bigger than other cells, and not an order of magnitude bigger.
In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch") or the change of a species over time into another (anagenesis, not nowadays generally used). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, is also therefore macroevolution.
Microevolution refers to any evolutionary change below the level of species, and refers to changes in the frequency within a population or a species of its alleles (alternative genes) and their effects on the form, or phenotype, of organisms that make up that population or species.
Another way to state the difference is that macroevolution is between-species evolution of genes and microevolution is within-species evolution of genes.
The terms macroevolution and microevolution were first coined in 1927 by the Russian entomologist Iurii Filipchenko, in his German-language work Variabilit+ÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â±t und Variation, which was the first attempt to reconcile Mendelian genetics and evolution. Filipchenko was an evolutionist, but as he wrote during the period when Mendelism seemed to have made Darwinism redundant, the so-called "eclipse of Darwinism" (Bowler 1983), he was not a Darwinian, but an orthogeneticist.
The theory of evolution is so well-established that the likelihood of it being overturned is about as likely as the theory of relativity being overturned: possible, but so unlikely as to not be worth worrying about.Yes, in science, nothing is set in stone. This is not a flaw of science, but an essential component of how it works. Science is constantly testing its theories to discover flaws in them, so that these flaws might be corrected. Contrast this to most creation "scientists", many of whom are still parroting misquotations and falsehoods that were debunked in the 80s (or even earlier!).
I am not saying that evolution will be completley overturned, but there is the possibilty that different theories within evolution can be proved false in the future. Look at the theorgy of evolution, it has constantly evolved itself. It is a theory that is not set in stone ,that is ever changing, day by day.