I agree with the vast majority of your post. However, like others, you are taking what we have observed on a micro level and simply deducing that significantly larger and more complex biological changes can also occur.
If you accept that micro changes do occur, then can you accept that LOTS of micro changes can occur over long periods of time? What would lots of micro changes over huge spans of time equate to?
Tell me where, in the following scenario, that it breaks down for you... This is completely hypothetical, and I have no idea if snakes were the ancestors of lizards, but I'm just trying to show you the point.
Let's start with a snake that has a random mutation that give it a tiny outcropping of tissue on both sides of its body up near the head. This is a micro change. Almost imperceptible to the eye. And lets say that maybe this snake climbed a lot of rocks, and that little outcropping of tissue allowed him to get more leverage and climb higher than other snakes for food. For this particular snake, this is an advantage over others of its kind, so this snake mates and has babies, and all those babies also have the small outcropping of tissue. A few years go by, and eventually the snakes with the mutation far outnumber the ones that don't have it. Then another snake is born. This new snake had a random mutation that made that outcropping of tissue (that it already had) even bigger. This is micro change number 2. This snake has an even bigger advantage than the first one, so it moves faster and higher on the rocks, and thus gets more food and breeds more than others. before long, most of the snakes have this mutation as well. Then a third one happens, then a fourth, then then a fifth and so on, always building on that little lump of tissue until eventually you've got what you could consider a limb. Throughout the process you may have snakes with random mutations for smaller lumps, or wider lumps, or multiple lumps, but those that give the most benefit will give a survival advantage.
The absence of a proper scientific study (using the scientific method) to demonstrate that this occurs renders whatever you deduce from the microevolutionary evidence as nothing more than speculation.
Its not speculation. It's addition. It is the only thing that CAN happen. If you get tens of thousands of small changes, what else could possibly happen?
Yes, because the ‘programming’ for those changes are already coded for. The part you are failing to demonstrate is how that coding in earlier forms of life went off in a different direction and started producing the enormous variation we see in today’s life forms.
It has everything to do with the environment. Lets say there were 2 snakes that had the mutation I talked about above (say they were babies of the first snake). If one of the snakes migrated to flat grasslands, the outcroppings of tissue that the random mutation brought about might not have given the snake an advantage over others of its kind, and therefore wouldn't make that snake any more likely to mate or find food. Therefore, it would be one of those completely neutral mutations for that snake. It is only when the mutation gives some sort of advantage over another individual that the mutation will spread through the species over time.
We have no observed evidence of benefit gaining mutations that can produce macroevolution....that is, large scale biological changes (eg. snakes-from lizards, birds-from dinosaurs, etc).
We don't need them. All we need is a process that can produce small changes, and a brain that can understand many small changes over large periods of time, will absolutely produce large changes.
It really seems you're stuck on the word 'macroevolution'. Fine, get rid of it. What do you want to call the process where lots and lots of microevolution takes place?
Most mutations are injurious which can only lead to what seems to be a ridiculous proposition that an organism randomly acquired a beneficial mutation
Are you denying that mutations can be beneficial? If no, then this is reasonable.
which then, in turn, happened to be inherited,
Are you saying genetic mutations can not be inherited? If no, then this step is also reasonable.
which then, in turn, was complimented by another beneficial mutation
Are you denying that mutations can be beneficial? If no, then this step is reasonable.
which would then, in turn, be inherited
Are you saying genetic mutations can not be inherited? If no, then this step is reasonable.
and, again, be complimented by another beneficial mutation that somehow conferred an advantage to the organism.
Each step, over and over again is possible. Thousands of times over, yeah. Wrap your head around millions of generations of birth and death.
And, all along the way, the intermediate steps would have required that they produced an advantage that was selected for.
See my snake example above, yeah.
Stop thinking in big terms. Think little terms over long periods of time. The process is right in front of you.