There are processes at both levels—conveniently dubbed microevolution and macroevolution. (There are lower- and higher-order processes than these, too. At the sub-micro level you have mitochondria in animal cells and chloroplasts in plant cells—which have DNA of their own, independent of their animal/plant host's, and which were both once independent single-celled organisms before they "moved in" to larger cells and fell into a symbiosis that became permanent. That whole process was "submicro"—below the level of individual plants or animals, but nevertheless becoming indispensable in energy metabolism.)
In any case, there are plain enough examples of species where ALL evolution is the macro- type. Consider honeybees... in which more than 95% of the hive is sterile worker bees and the queen is the ONLY female who can reproduce. Obviously it would be ludicrous to treat the individual bees—most of which have literally zero evolutionary fitness as separate individuals (as they CAN'T pass on genes, and none of them, not even the queen, can survive wihtout ALL of hte others in the hive)—as evolutionary units; the whole hive is the smallest quantum of evolution that makes any sense to consider. (Insofar as you might get adaptive mutations in an individual queen or male drone here and there, the evolutionary role of those is much more like that of a mitochondrion inside one of your muscle cells than like anything that Darwin would have recognized as the random walk of "1 animal".)
Same thing with corals/coral reefs... in which the "individuals" are tiny, plankton-sized invertebrate animals and dinoflagellate protists—neither of which is viable for survival individually. Only the whole coral colony/"reef" has nonzero evolutionary fitness, so, again, the process is 100 percent macro-.
Some people argue that the entire coral reef colony should be considered 1 animal—with the individual tiny invertebrates and protists demoted to a status more like organelles (like the chloroplasts and mitochondria mentioned above)—BUT THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT, that evolution is so thoroughly multi-level that in some instances it isn't even totally clear exactly what is "one individual".
Schooling fish, too, have zero chance of survival as individuals—they can only avoid predators by visually dazzling them with maneuvers as an entire school, so, as far as defensive survival capability is concerned, it's rlly the whole school that is a single evolving "thing". Etc etc.
Way over at the other end you have the likes of tigers, which are about as asocial as big land animals get (they pretty much get together to hook up, wham bam, make more tigers, and leave... and never socialize for any other purpose) and are thus an example of the actual, over-simplistic, OG darwinian model in action.
But, circling back to what put me on this tangent... it's beyond question that human beings ••living in social civilizations•• are undergoing a primarily macro-evolution process. And equally clear that the lion's share of "modern standards of living" comprises 999,000 different social practices and technologies that specifically redirect (at minimum), or even thwart or counteract, the Hobbesian forces of "nature, red in tooth and claw" that cull individuals individually.