DNA + Microevolution+ Bayes =Macroevolution

[David Sklansky]

I know a lot less about the specifics of evolution than many people here. In spite of that, I think I have an argument that I have not seen used on this forum by evolutionists, when they are arguing with creationists about "macrovevolution". Evidently there is a lot stronger evidence for "microevolution" within a species than the macroevolution needed to change one species to another.

Evolutionists on this forum seem to struggle a bit with this objection and are forced to point to rare cases to make their point. But it seems to me that once DNA was discovered, well after Darwin, logic is all one needs to deduce that evolution between species is far more likely than a designer who bypasses evolution.

Unless I am confused about something, once we are aware of the existence of DNA and the existence of mutations, then what is to stop an animal to occasionally be born with enough mutations that it qualifies as a different species? Even if we never found a fossil example. Before DNA and its mutations were discovered, it might be reasonable to make a lot of the fact that there is little or no experimental evidence. Even more so if there was ever any evidence of a designer who sometimes bypasses scientific laws. But given there isn't, and given we know of a theoretical way for species to mutate into other species, math tells us the second explanation has to be the giant favorite.