A minority do, yes. Even they certainly don't consider them seperate mechanisms, or recognize any inherent barrier that prevents successive microevolutionary change from resulting in macroevolutionary change.
I'd have to disagree with this statement for these reasons:
Biolgists recognize that speciation is separate problem from general changes in alleles within a population. That is where, I think, the "macro" word came from dividing events which remain below the species line from others.
There do need to be some extra mechanisms to allow speciation to occur and allow an overall increase in the number of species. That is if one population remains a "species" and is allowed to continue to freely interbred then it may become over time a new species in that it would not be able to breed with their great-great-.....great grandparents but only one new species not more than one.
The need for additional mechanisms (geographic separation for example) does produce some kind of demarcation between macro and micro evolution. The changes are the same for the organisms but when additional mechanisms are added the changes produce a different sort of outcome in populations.
™ Version 4.2
