It hasn’t been thrown out yet because it is adequate.
A novel example of macroevolution can be found when a plant has an error in meiosis which leads to offspring with polyploidy. They’re phenotypically identical to the parent; neither you nor I could tell them apart just by looking at them. But, since they possess more sets of chromosomes than their parent, they cannot reproduce with other members of the parent’s species. If they are barred from reproducing, then they are a distinct species. Distinct species? Sounds like macroevolution – any change at or above the level of species.
I have never heard of chemical generation in a science context. The first result on a google search related to a literary movement. Can you provide a source corroborating your claim that spontaneous generation was simply remarketed (c.f. creationism to intelligent design)?
Where are all the descendants of the fossil species that no longer exist? Why don’t current species date back to the same time?
Where are the human remains embedded in the same rock strata as the dinosaurs?
None of that matters to the people who will not accept evolution as a reasonable explanation.
If you’re not a Noah’s Ark Republican, you’re just not welcome at the table.