I would say that a large number of small changes will equal a big change. That appears to be an obvious, observable truth.
The only difference between micro and macro evolution is time.
The truth here seems to be you're agreeing with Darwin, yet attacking him for other, personal reasons. It seems pretty clear.
"I believe species adapt to their environment, but I don't agree with Darwin's theory".
That's a logical contradiction.
That's not only non-obvious, but it's been coercively disproven by experiment as I have noted.
A stupid theory is one thing; a stupid theory which gets 100 million people killed is something else. Chuck's theory, aside from being idiotic in and of itself, was the most major philosophical foundation of naziism and communism. Moreover, the prime motivation for the general acceptance of Chuck's theory appears to have had to do with the drug-dealing proclivities of the British empire in the 1800's.
In forming a judgement of evolutionism, you must at some point consider the circumstances under which it arose and the most probable set of reasons for its rise to dominance.
You've heard of the Medelin Cartel, El Pino, Pablo Escobar, the Pagans, and all of the other drug dealers of our times. The truth is, all together they probably don't add up to a hill of beans compared to the operations of the British empire in the 19'th century. At least one major eastern city was set up for no other reason than to serve as a conduit for Indian opium into China and an entire war was fought to protect the opium trade.
Now, you don't need to be Albert Einstein to comprehend that for a supposedly Christian nation to be engaging in this sort of business must have created at least two problems on an organizational level. One was the question of motivating men to fight and die for such causes: "For God, Bonnie Queen Vickie, and the Opium Trade, CHARGE!!!!!!" probably wouldn't get it...
The other problem which springs to mind immediately would be that which the CEO or chairman of the board of the East India Company must have faced in conducting board meatings. Picture it:
"Gentlemen, I have some good news, and I have some bad news. The good news is that profits are up 73.2% on a volume of trade which has increased 27% over the same three-month period last year, and that all of our operations appear to be running smoothly. Indigenous peoples of India, Burma, China, and several other areas with a propensity to cause problems are now happily stoned out of their minds on our products, and are causing no further trouble.""The bad news is that we're all probably going to spend the next 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years roasting on a barbecue pit for this shit..."
Now picture Chuck Darwin walking into this scene and telling all of these people that they're sitting around worrying over nothing, and that the only moral law in nature is "The Survival of the Fittest". Can you not see all of those peoples' eyes lighting up, their hair standing straight up, and somebody screaming "By Jove, I think he's got it?"
I mean, it doesn't even matter what led Darwin to devise the theory of evolution. In any normal time or set of circumstances, he'd have either been laughed to scorn, hanged, or burned. He succeeded precisely because he solved several major problems for the Godfathers of 100 years ago. In other words, there's more than a little truth to my claim that someone has to be stoned to buy off on this BS.
So some presume. But there is a big jump from affirming that the size of a bird's beak can vary to making the claim that the bird turned into a whole other animal. The one has been observed, the other has not.