You asked about macro-evolution, and I gave examples of known instances that have proven useful. Many of the instances have been selected by humans after occurring naturally.
We know they occurred after human cultivation started because they can't sustain themselves without cultivation.
Now you can quibble about the naturalness of this, but the fact is that until recent decades, all such mutations were natural, and humans simply changed the rules for selecting which variants got to produce the most offspring.
The principles of evolution can be useful without being written down in books, just as people could make music befor the invention of notation.
It's not the naturalness about it that I question. I question what it has to do with evolution. So man conducts breeding experiments and practices artificial selection to produce plants and animals with specific traits. That's selection, but it's not evolution. That's simply selecting the already existing gene pool to heighten certain traits. And man was doing this thousands of years before evolutionary theory was dreamed up.
Evolutionary theory didn't have squat to do with it.
"Now you can quibble about the naturalness of this, but the fact is that until recent decades, all such mutations were natural, and humans simply changed the rules for selecting which variants got to produce the most offspring. The principles of evolution can be useful without being written down in books ..."
Well, my goodness. Are you actually saying that selective breeding is applied evolutionary theory? You've certainly changed your tune from those interminable Hitler-Darwin threads, where you would scarcely admit that there was even such a thing as applied science at all.