Evolution occurs

My opponent's stance can be summarized as believing that evolutionary changes do take place, but that speciation never occurs. He also believes that mutations are always detrimental. I would like to correct my opponent by telling him that macro/micro evolution are not different theories but simply different parts of evolution. My opponent is of the stance that microevolution occurs, but macroevolution does not. The key difference between these is whether evolution can result in speciation. All speciation is is when mutations cause one breed to no longer reproduce with another, making them separate species. I will provide a known example of speciation, but I would first like to point out the obvious logical flaw with suggesting that no species can split into 2 different species. This would be suggesting that the different species in the world are not genetically related whatsoever. This is quite ridiculous, of course, considering how similar many different species are. For instance, chimpanzees and humans (which aren't even in the same genus) only have a 1.2% difference in genes. My opponent seems to be suggesting that this almost identical genome is the result of pure coincidence? That is ridiculous, logically that information would imply that humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor, and that somewhere along the way, their lineages were divided into 2 different species. My opponent seems to have another misconception about evolution which I would like to point out. He defined macroevolution as suggesting "that species may change from one species to another species". That is not a description of evolution. Evolution is not so much a change from one species to another, but more the branching off into another species. basically, if one lineage evolves into a new species, their cousins to not vanish. And likewise, in the instance of microevolution, the whole species does not necessarily change, but certain individuals may be present that have a mutation that others don't. And if that lineage of slightly different individuals can get more and more variation, it is only logical that they, after a while, may not be able to reproduce with others. This is especially true when a species is suddenly divided geographically and then undergo microevolution independently of each other. The chance that they would both happen to evolve exactly the same way if they are in different environments and divided so they can't reproduce, is negligible at best. Therefore, speciation definitely occurs in nature. Now, my opponent has also made the illogical statement that beneficial mutations never occur. This is a clear contradiction to his earlier statement that micro-evolution takes place. How can my opponent believe that microevolution takes place, yet not believe that beneficial mutations occur? The only answer I can think of is that he has some sort of misunderstanding of what evolution is or a misunderstanding of what mutations are. A species cannot "adapt according to surroundings" (which you have claimed occurs) if they cannot mutate beneficially. The "adaptations" are merely the mutations that were beneficial enough to not get the individual killed. Positive change cannot occur without beneficial mutations. So which is it? Microevolution or no good mutations? It can't be both. And even so, how could organisms reach their complex and efficient state they are at now without positive mutations? How could they change from extremely simple particles to large, perfectly-adapted organisms such as sharks? I don't know how you would suggest that would happen without a long series of occasional benign mutations. I could provide lots of factual data, but you being a person of blind faith to an invisible deity, I feel that facts wouldn't mean much to you. With this in mind, I have decided to go about this debate by logic. If you do not like this, please tell me.