What are different types of evolution? Real (micro) and Imaginary (macro)?

They're the same thing.
Saying that micro evolution is different from macro evolution is like saying the time I spend driving down the road is different from the time I spend driving around the entire block.

You're not asking this because you want answers.
The only reason you're asking this kind of question in the Religion and Spirituality section is to start an argument.
Go away, troll.

"Real (micro) and Imaginary (macro)?"

Oh I get it, you're not actually asking a question, see what you're doing here is answering the question without any input from anyone else. This is because you don't WANT an answer, you just want to rant about your own opinions, and apparently look like a complete moron (which you pull off with stunning brevity).

You are a moron. Micro evolution over an advanced period of time will develop into Macroevolution.

Like if you add 1+1 every second for the next million years.

Go educate yourself. There is no such thing as Micro or Macro. Evolution is Evolution and it is a fact.

"Nothing in Biology Makes Sense, Except in the Light of Evolution"- Theodosius Dobzhansky

"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory." - Scott D. Weitzenhoffer

Steve Jones, the award-winning geneticist and author, argued that suggesting that creationism and evolution be given equal weight in education was “rather like starting genetics lectures by discussing the theory that babies are brought by storks”. Panda's thumb

Read these books:

The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey -Spencer Wells
Your inner fish- Neil Shubin
Why evolution is true- Jerry A. coyne
The Link-Colin Tudge
Only a Theory-Kenneth R. Miller
The Greatest Show on Earth- Richard Dawkins
Lucy's Legacy - Donald Johanson

Anyone with a good grasp of how evolution works knows that macroevolution is just alot of microevolution taken together.

You can see this especially in so-called ring species. For example, the Ensatina eschscholtzii complex of salamanders exists as a series of populations that go around the mountain sides surrounding the Central Valley in California. If you start from the far south, going around the mountain range, moving North on the West side of the valley, you first encounter a plain brown salamander. Gradually, as you go north, you'll run into separate populations of this salamander - every population will look slightly different from the previous population, until at the north end of the valley, the slamander has noticeable blotches - it's "semi-blotched". As you go back down on the other side of the valley, the trend continues, until back at the south end, the chain ends in a very different looking salamander than what the plain brown one we began with; it has sharp, clear blothes. But here's the kicker - this blothed population, when it meets the plain brown population, do not interbreed. They do not recognize each other as the same species.

Further, molecular studies of the two forms show that they are different species in every definition - they are genetically incompatible. They are true species, not just varieties.

Yet every intermediate between them still exists along the mountain range! And every intermediate is capable of successfully interbreeding with the neighbouring population along the chain, except at the ends of the chain, when the chain meets again in the South.

This is, of course, just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to evidence for this kind of speciation - it has even been observed in a lab, in fruit flies, and we've got mountains of evidence, in the genomes of all living things, of their shared ancestry. We have enough of this kind of evidence, that even if we had not a single fossil, it would be more than enough to establish the truth of common descent - and we do have the fossils too, of course.

Evolution is the change in allele distribution caused by environmental stress. Once a sufficient number of gene changes accumulate in a population sexually isolated from the rest of the species, their gametes can no long undergo recombination. Hence, a new species is formed.

Imaginary! Sure. Ignore millions of years of evidence.

The micro is nothing but the old adaptation that has been around forever.

What us creationist call micro evolution is variations and adaptions within a given kind of animal producing various species. Evolutionist reject micro and macro evolution. To them it's all just evolution. And while Denver above calls you a moron by pointing out the difference between micro and and macro evolution and suggest micro leads to macro, Why don't you ask her to provide some solid evidence for that. There's not one shred of evidence for one animal evolving to another, and she knows it. God bless.

Presuming you are looking for a serious answer and presuming that at least you are not able to deny that MICRO organisms such as bacteria or virus evolve/change (unless of course they are being intelligently designed or a malevfic product of our labs) the only thing I´d like to say is that MACRO evolution is exactly the same thing. But since we have MICRO longevity of life, we are not really able to see the mechanism acting at the level of MACRO species.

EDIT: Hey Mr. Top Contributor above, would you describe the vestigial leg bones in certain dolphins and whales (that are not even "converted" in fins) as a variation or adaptation?