Seems to me all of the facts of evolution theory, or most of them, can be accepted as true even if macro-evolution did not happen.
Let us now assume macro didn't happen. So then we have a population of say pithecines or any ape, it's just pretend. Now let's say selection pressure, acts upon a population so that in hotter conditions selection selects for the shorter haired individuals. Now does the absence of macro evolution prevent this fact from being reality? So far, no.
Now we can have things like genetic drift occurring, the "lucky" genes you might say, randomly some are favoured over others. Now imagine if the climate changes, you get gene flow occur, some of the more hairy apes are reintroduced from another group, now imagine a disease crops up where it would be advantageous to favour the mutation for sickled cells, selection chooses the ones with the sickled cells.
Now let us look at the types of micro changes we see. Slightly different shaped lizard toe-pads, slightly tougher, different shaped beaks in finches, lost of wings on beetles on windy islands.
Certainly it seems to me we can accept a lot of the facts had it not happened, so then why do these facts mean that macro did happen?
All of the descriptions of evolution I find, basically explain evolution as micro evolution. Macro is just inferred from those explanations. Sure, for macro we have things like homoplasy and homology, convergent evolution. We obviously don't accept convergent evolution, but then when we look at micro evolution, we don't find any convergent evolution anyway. All of the facts just seem to be with micro, and if we had any good reason to believe that translated to macro, we'd accept it.
I honestly, in all my years of reading about it and thinking it over, just can't see any real reason to accept the macro part as anything more than conjecture that only is predicated on coincidence, circumstantial evidence and basically belief it happened.