I get the sense that you don't know what those two things actually mean (microevolution and macroevolution). Microevolution and macroevolution are essentially the same thing, changes and mutations in living organisms, but on different time scales. You said microevolution would be prove and macroevolution would be debunked (or meant to at least), when one leads in to the other. Enough small changes will eventually lead to big changes, that's true for all facets of life. One of my favorite examples of this is the evolution of the whale, which evolved from wolf-like ancestors (see [i]Indohyus[/i]). Small adaptation in the Indohyus led the species to become more adept at hunting in the water, and eventually all those small changes added up to a big change; the modern whale; microevolution to macroevolution. It's impossible to look at microevolution and macroevolution and think only one is scientific fact. That's like saying a McNugget is still chicken; yeah it's made of the same stuff (chicken meat), but the meat has been so dramatically altered that you can barely considered it chicken meat, or at least I can't.

Exactly. It's not fact, like OP stated. It's still not entirely understood.