The only difference between macro and microevolution is the time scale; they're the same process.
Actually, the latter is observable, repeatable and falsifiable where the former isn't.
(and notice that you only refute evolution by trying to poke holes in it, not by advancing an alternative idea)
Why should holes not be poked? It's not above criticism. If people are going to say that the common ancestor between Human beings and primates is Protungulatum donnae then provide that evidence. Unless you have anything other than that jawbone or teeth or whatever it's supposed to be, even if I assume it to be completely real and not made up in whole or part like an artist rendition in plaster ...I see no reasonable scientific evidence that it is the case.
As far as an alternative:
An Intelligent force, called by some, God, created a multitude of living forms millions of years ago...those forms may or may not have
evolved to form a multitude of Domains, Kingdoms, Phylums, Classes, Orders, Families or Genus. It's moot since all of that life was wiped out. The life that is now on the planet was made roughly 6,000 years ago, there being a gap between old life and current. So, when Scientists look at fossils, hundreds of thousands to millions of years old and explain variety, they expand that out to the "near" present in error and assume the current life forms originated from older extinct life forms when they didn't. Equating current life forms to older fossilized life forms due to physical similarity, especially when most, if not all "links" are nowhere near complete to come to a rational conclusion, is a fallacy of Post Hoc among others.
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/06/three-fallacies-of-evolution.html
