His diatoms in the fossil record is NOT an example of macro evolution either. That's merely speciation something that creationists believe in as well.

Macro evolution would be that little diatom turning into something other than a diatom, not simply a different species of diatom.

You see there are two things going on here, speciation, which is the observable, provable, demonstrable adaptation of an organism to its enviroment, something which occurs all the time, and can demonstrated easily, like the diatom example Dawkins gave.

Then there is Macro evolution, which is the evolution of a completely new organism, for example, the diatom becoming something else which isn't a diatom, or a dog evolving into something else which isn't a dog.

This CANNOT happen, there is no known biological mechanism for this to happen and such tranistional fossils do not exist in the fossil record which is why Dawkins when proudly showing off his chimpanzee/human family tree was pointing to EMPTY GAPS when he was showing us our ancestors. They can't find the ancestors because macro evolution DOES NOT HAPPEN