"...many scientists have taken to the idea of macro evolution."

I think this is a confusion regarding terms. macro-evolution.net is Dr. Eugene McCarthy's site that describes how hybridization is, despite being ignored by Darwinian evolutionists, the primary mechanism by which speciation occurs. The fossil record shows that species (which aren't exclusive reproductively in actual fact, which has been the legacy description of the term, because hybridization exists, but are more accurately described as primary breeding populations, because hybridization is relatively rare) persist with relatively stable forms for long periods. This permits the evolution of traits without dramatic alterations of a species. This process of gradual replacement of specific traits through preferential survival doesn't result in dramatic changes in form, like eyes suddenly becoming compound, new organs, and etc. In 'The Beak of the Finch' Jonathan Weiner describes how cycles of drought and wetter weather, the beaks of the various finches in the Galapagos Islands become more robust during droughts, but return to more gracile form during better weather. This happens because in a drought the more desirable seeds that are eaten rapidly become scarce as plants produce less of them when starved of water. The seeds that are left available are those that are harder to crack, more difficult for finches to eat, and have been passed over by finches in good weather, remaining relic across the landscape.

As droughts cause starvation and population decline in finch populations, those with stronger, more robust beaks tend to survive better than those with more slender, gracile beaks, because they more deftly crack the tougher nuts that are available. Gracile beaks more quickly and deftly handle softer and easier to eat seeds, so when wetter weather is restored and more of those seeds are available, finches with gracile beaks tend to reproduce more effectively than the less deft robust beaked finches, and this creates an evolutionary cycle in Galapagos Finches that reflects weather patterns over multi-decadal scale. This doesn't alter the basic form that finches take, but slightly changes their beaks, and possibly behaviour (which is harder to show because it's harder to measure than beaks). Novel species don't result from this evolutionary process (except that primary breeding groups form because of geographical isolation, because of the difficulty of personal interaction. This speciation doesn't result in dramatic differences, but in obviously closely related finches adapted to local conditions in minor ways), and that can be projected to species across the landscape responding to environmental conditions, whether cyclical or not.

Hybridization, OTOH, does immediately produce novel features and organs, as well as behaviours. Hybridization doesn't only happen between closely related species, like horses and donkeys are know to create mules and jennies, but occur between extremely different creatures, even if only rarely. Neither does hybridization only produce sterile offspring. We often think that it does because we are most familiar with hybrids from mules, which are a common draft animal for reasons related to industry. Dr. McCarthy studied hybridization of avian species. His 'Handbook of Avian Hybrids' is the bible in the field, but, of course, birds aren't the only species that hybridize. Plants reveal the extremity of hybridization potential, due to the common practice of plants to disperse pollen across the environment as the means of getting it to the female gametes of the species in creatures that are immobile. This causes pollen to end up reaching the gametes of almost every creature in the environment, when windborn particularly.

Plants exhibit extreme polyploidy animals generally do not. This is because most animals aren't immobile, and sexual reproduction is largely a personal interaction. Sexual reproduction features diploidy, in which each gene has two forms, one from each parent. Each gamete is haploid, meaning each parent contributes only one form of each gene, which are combined to create diploid offspring. Plants can be triploid, or even quadruploid, where each gene has three or four forms that the genome somehow resolves into a phenotypic form in a creature. It is difficult to conceive of ways such polyploidy could arise in sexual reproduction in which personal interaction was the reproductive method, but when hybridization is considered, the sometimes very distant relations that somehow reproduce by other means of introducing their gametes, the very different numbers of chromosomes, different genes, and various differences are only able to fudge together a hybrid offspring by dramatically adapting these differences, and one way to so adapt is to simply fuse diploid sources, or one diploid and one haploid source, creating quadraploidy and triploidy respectively.

The Platypus, the duck-billed, egg-laying mammal with venomous spurs on it's ankles like chickens, is an obvious candidate hybrid species due to it's being a combination of mammalian features, like fur, mammary glands, and etc. of mammals, and spurs, external eggs with shells, and a beak like birds. Prior to the discovery of the form and function of DNA, cladistics considered it a sort of missing link between birds and mammals, which were later sorted to have different features that the basal Platypus form had all jumbled together. However, digging into the Platypus genome has revealed it isn't a primordial example of a form that birds and mammals later derived from, but a hybrid between a duck and a mammal (probably something like a Nutria or Otter). Platypus have long stretches of duck DNA preserved in their genome, which pretty obviously isn't featured in other mammals, so could only have resulted in Platypus genomes from hybridization after the differentiation of birds and mammals.

This strange hybrid is very much exceeded by some of the hybrid plants, because while birds and mammals are pretty different their personal reproductive mechanism is a shared feature in both families, but in plants very, very different species can be exposed to gametes through broadcast dispersal of pollen, resulting in quite bizarre species arising, comparable to the examples of what doesn't arise from Darwinian evolution, such as compound eyes or novel organs, when these very different genes from distantly related plants are hybridized and commingled in a hybrid offspring.

That is macroevolution, which isn't simply compounding gradual evolutionary changes over time, and hybridization is constantly happening in nature all around us. We are very new to science, and not enough eyeballs have looked at the wondrous variety of life and the insane myriad of mechanisms that have arisen during ~4B years of reproduction and evolution to touch on more than a tiny fraction, usually the most obvious features, extant today. Only hubris and ignorance underlie the ridiculous claims of those that assert we can definitely improve on the immune system, or vision, or any biological function, huffing their own farts out of conceit, and utterly unaware of the billions of years during which natural mechanisms have been iterated and tested IRL conditions to result in the features living things have today.

People that understand these limitations of our understanding actual science applies will note the obvious false narrative regarding vaccines, or genetic therapies, for example, and the record of failure in these specific fields reflects the ludicrous hubris of the pharmaceutical industry and genetic engineers proclaiming they know better after 20 years of research than nature has produced in ~4B years of field experience. What we know is mostly wrong, and that's because we haven't had anywhere near the necessary time collectively to even look at most of the incomprehensible variety and complexity of natural biology. We're like cavemen with clubs bashing things into a shape we can handle, and if things live through it, we say 'See, Og make better!', despite our far less complex and refined industrial products compared to natural ecosystems.

I'll leave off commenting on the rest of the post, as this is already too much of a wall of text.

Thanks!