Do armchair YA scientists know the difference between natural variations of species in a limited gene pool?

also mistakenly called "microevolution" and the giant leaps, missing intermediates (transitionals) which are called "macroevolution?" I think not, for most did not know what I was talking about. Furthermore, do evolutionists here understand that positive/negative mutations are guarded against by mechanisms in the cell which seek to destroy them, or that most all mutations are of negative effect, if they do carry through? Micro to macro is not like adding the steps up to a mile. It's like walking 100 meteors, coming to a wall, and inventing a time machine to magically take you to the mile mark. It takes faith and the billions of missing transitionals in the ever-changing evolutionary tree of life demand deep skepticism in macroevolution.