Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So far you haven't presented any.
"Macro-evolution" (to use your term) is the best most likely correct explanation for life according to the available evidence. Much like Newton and Einstein it is likely that any theory that "replaces" evolution will be a superset of Darwinian evolution rather than a replacement.
And for the record there are examples of evolution occurring at the macro scale right now in the form of ring species where neighboring pairs produce viable offspring but more distant species don't. eg: A -> B -> C -> D where A & B occasionally mate and produce offspring that results in gene mixing between the subgroups, but A & D cannot produce viable offspring. If B or C goes extinct this will trigger speciation by breaking the chain, permanently stopping the mixing of genes between the now separate chains. Look at the greenish warbler or euphorbia tithymaloides.
The Russian Domesticated Red Fox[1] is a great example of selective pressure at work and how it can produce dramatic changes in a species (though this is necessarily artificial in order to obtain results on human time scales).
You are correct in saying the extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I was a great believer in the evolutionary model until I started reading in detail the experimental results of experiments performed by evolutionary biologists. Their conclusions about the results of their experiments supporting the evolutionary model was in conflict with their actual results.
You bring up ring "species" without defining what "species" means in this regard . I recently did a small survey trying to find out what the specific definition of "species" was. To my disappointment, I find that there is no specific definition within the literature that applies across the board. This particular word can mean anything from some sub-grouping that has distinct characteristics to another sub-grouping, in which members of both sub-groups are able to produce viable reproducing offspring that have merged characteristics, all the way up to having two groups that cannot produce any kind of offspring under any circumstances.
The literature is very adept at doing a lot of hand-waving about how the model works and what predictions are made.
Though the model may be the current generally accepted model, it does so on very weak foundations. People are allowed to question the veracity of the model and hold it to criticism without having to provide an alternative. It is allowable to question any model/theory in any way without the proponents getting on their high-horses and taking their marbles home. There are no silly questions.
But the way it is presented today, it can be and should be treated with scepticism as, in many ways, it is dogma not science.
There is much the evolutionary model doesn't answer and should be under continual experimental testing to test the veracity of any of its claims.
Having the existence of mutation and genetic variation (including antibiotic resistance or chemical resistance) does not in any way signify that the evolutionary model (Darwinian) is correct or even viable.
Going back to your ring species example, wolves, coyotes and domestic dogs were/are considered to separate species, yet we are no finding that all three are producing reproductively viable offspring. So, a valuable question to ask is "Are they the same species but different sub-groups or are they separate species that have undergone some biological change that now allows them to cross breed?" A second question to ask is "Is this an example of the existing evolutionary model (as per its predictive capabilities) or is this an example which will work against that model?"
Lastly, the term macro-evolution has a history going back to 1927, with its use falling in and out of favour with evolutionists and palaeontologists since then. Even within the evolutionary community, there is a wide distribution of opinions as to how different "species" arise and the relationships between them.
On the whole, the model fails to explain the wide variety of different organisms and their associated grouping and relationships. Unless many more experiments can be done showing the actual applicability of the model across a vast range of different organisms and it being able to predict expected change in groupings that can be tested, it will continue to remain a hand-waving model and nothing more.
Anyone can challenge the evolutionary model (or any other model/theory) without having to provide an alternative. If people cannot accept that, then they are in no position themselves to ever challenge any proposal put forward that they disagree with without first presenting a fully viable alternative. As they say, "ya canna ha ya cak en et it tu".
The one thing that I do find amusing is that theologically, the Darwinian evolutionary model fits in very well with Hindu theology. This was brought to my attention in reading various papers presented by Hindu theologians/guru's.
No, but when they talk about species, there is no definitive meaning used. As a result, the model doesn't give you any clue as to what the model is about.
Being 'scientific' is not required for an idea to be correct (nor does it imply the idea is correct).
Though frankly, when they said "fundamentally correct" they meant "doesn't have any significant conflicts with our current knowledge of the subject".