Scientists are supposedly professionals that deal with the observable and logical analysis of available facts from observations, not promoting concepts impossible to satisfy by observation. For now let's give a big pass not requiring repeating some supposed observation in the field or lab, like making a fossil jellyfish with every detail preserved. Since there are plenty of those already provided in nature, defyng science, I'll pause that idea too. If I required that you would spend trillions and not succeed. There are other big factors necessary to sustain a theory, not to even speak of a law, that are still missing in evolution, still technically an hypothesis.
How many charts would you suppose are in museums and texbooks showing "missing link" fossils that have not actually been found as drawn? Who has the proof in actual fossil evidence linking a bear and a whale? I submit that most of the "proofs" or "evidences" of evolution exist in imaginations and artistry. Macro-evolution is in fact a bite of science any honest person should choke on, being almost all plastic, like fake margarine.
"Micro-evolution" is not related to macro-evolution except in the midst of uninformed debate. "Macroevolution is decoupled from microevolution" (Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process). Each species DNA enables a wide range of alterations of physical features that temporarily enable an animal within a particular Family to adapt to environmental changes that would otherwise doom the animal that is never seen able to cross Family thresholds. "Micro" in this case indicates a reversible event in nature that produces "in the lab" what has for a long time been considered production of "hybrids". Over-hybridization usually results in "infertility", inability to reproduce at all due to the need for an artificial combining of genes. Of more importance is production of "Varieties" within a species sub-group that are fertile, continuing the sub group variety of a species.
Saying microevolution mixed with millions of years results in production of macro-evolved families is not proved sustainable biology. It is still just a matter of following the Darwinian model. The notion that "millions" of years has been a proved factor is also subject to serious debate, no dating method so far proved to be trustworthy.
So, my answer is, from a very limited stated base that I could not at all expect an evolutionist to reproduce any unobserved phenomena based on a model with no chain of indisputable evidences macroevolution even exists. But, true science demands you demonstrate this concept in a lab. I think most creationists would be satisfied with any actual fossil record tracking unbroken macroevolution at all, in any species or certainly even any FAMILY, without aid of any artist's conceptions or ridiculous redefinitions of biology terms. HOW many times have evolutionists had to change the definition of variety, species, family and genus to carry on the Hail Mary passes around creationists that have yet to score in the halls of science?