You admit there is evolution on the micro level, as you put it, but you say the changes are irrelevant.

Talk.Origins seems to agree that micro evolution could be defined as "the shifting of gene frequencies in a local population." (Pardon me if I shouldn't assume that you guys would agree). That means that if we have a light colored moth, and a dark colored moth, and something happens like, oh I don't know...pollution?, and it causes the dark colored moths to decome dominant, then that falls under this definition.

However, since this doesn't address where the dark or light phenotypes came from, its irrelevant to evolution as a whole. If gene frequencies can shift based on environmental pressures, this doesn't mean animals can grow gills when they never had them before. In other words, if we observe micro evolution, we still haven't observed anything that explains the creation of brand new, more complex creatures.

In fact, micro evolution just kind of sounds like a rewording of the idea of natural selection.