I didn't see any time frames for the speciation than wasn't the result of human manipulation.

Yes but we're discussing science here, and not the creationist mumbo jumbo, as far as I can tell. Aren't we?

There is no time frame. It can happen in one generation, or extremely slowly.

Of course, "one generation" is all but impossible for species that must reproduce sexually, but there are plenty that don't have to.

In science, the term is used much less frequently and with a very different meaning:

Aw crap, PH45's explanation is so much easier.

edit
OK, so Mendel (with modifications) has become generally accepted, while Schmalhausen's and Mayr's theorys have been discounted. The more tools they discover, like DNA, the stronger Mendel's theory looks and makes the micro/macro business Dobzhansky came up with, mesh.

Nevertheless, the term macroevolution has been around since the thirties and the definition now pretty well agreed on, in scientific circles. The creationists attempt to subvert it's meaning/use to make their case, is a non-starter.

Therefore, I'll stick with PH45's description as close enough for me.

Fine, but PH45 is saying that his definition of macroevolution hasn't been proven--and it has.

But I still haven't seen any time frames for speciation, where there hasn't been any manipulation by humans.

This chart in Clodfobble's link on speciation could certainly be called modification in response to a threat, specifically the loss of their normal food supply.

Why does everyone put down creationists? You know, people who maintain religion and origin from a supreme being? I bet that's the majority of the board, but I don't know for sure.
Recklessly calling it mumbo jumbo warrants offense to many.

It's mumbo jumbo because it's faith and not science.

The source of origin isn't necessarily being questioned, just the mechanism 'tween there and here.

Then you are intolerant of others' beliefs. Nowhere did you have to name call all creationists and refer to their way of lives' as mumbo jumbo. But you did, and I ask you why. Creationists were fine with you having the discussing within the realm of science without discrediting creationism.

Ok at least you edited in the second part, I was responding to what you originally said.

Intolerant? Hell no. They can believe what ever they want but they are trying to discredit science with no proof. That's not acceptable.

You seem to take offense at the term mumbo jumbo. OK, I apologize and retract that term. What shall we call it? Traditional explanation?

Where, anywhere, did a creationist viewpoint try to prove wrong science, huh Bruce?

You can believe whatever you want to believe - but asking other people to respect your beliefs is asking too much. (If you believe that gravity is really angels holding everything down should I respect that? Sorry, not gonna.) Intolerant? I'm fine with that. I'm intolerant of people who think they are the chosen ones,the only ones 'doing it right', and base their view of the world on old books instead of evidence. Religion is ridiculous and I personally have no respect for it.