The basic scientific perspective on macroevolution and microevolution is that macroevolution is lots of microevolution over time, but there are other natural processes that influence the course of macroevolution. This isn't much of a revelation because there are all sorts of natural processes that influence the course of microevolution as well. This doesn't change the fact that microevolution is fundamentally the operation of natural selection, mutation, genetic drift, and gene flow.

There is a robust argument among evolutionary biologists over how new body plans or major new morphological features arose. No one disputes the importance of natural selection: it affects the genetic variation in populations, which may be the basis for a new species (in conjunction with isolating mechanisms). All parties likewise recognize the possibility or even likelihood of other biological mechanisms affecting morphological features that distinguish major groups of organisms.

The issue in evolutionary biology is how and how much natural selection and other microevolutionary processes are supplemented by other mechanisms (such as regulatory genes operating early in embryological development).

Evolution vs. Creationism An Introduction, Eugenie C. Scott [emphasis added]

Despite the debate, not everyone agrees that there is actually much to debate about in the first place:

Speciation is the process by which one or more species arises from a common ancestor, and "macroevolution" refers to patterns and processes at and above the species level – or, transitions in higher taxa, such as new families, phyla, or genera. "Macroevolution" is contrasted with "microevolution," evolutionary change within populations, due to migration, selection, mutation, and drift. During the 1930s and 40s, Haldane (1932), Dobzhansky (1937), Mayr (1942), and Simpson (1944) argued that the origin of species and higher taxa were, given the right environmental conditions and sufficient time, the product of the same microevolutionary factors causing change within populations. Dobzhansky reviewed the evidence from genetics, and argued, "nothing in the known macroevolutionary phenomena would require other than the known genetic principles for causal explanation" (Dobzhansky, 1951, p.17).

Does punctuated equilibrium challenge the neo-Darwinian view of evolution? As for the descriptive claim, the observation that there is a variety of rates, and that these rates vary over time, was well known to paleontologists long before Eldredge and Gould (1973). So, it is not clear that this requires a radical revision of neo-Darwinian theory. There is abundant evidence that populations can respond quickly to selection, and that this has occurred in the fossil record with or without speciation.

So the claim that change at the species barrier is somehow qualitatively different from microevolutionary change, or that rapid change only occurs in speciation, is false. Moreover, there are several well-studied lineages where gradual change has occurred (Gingerich, 1986, 1987; Levinton, 2001). In sum, Eldredge and Gould's hypothesis does not seem so revolutionary after all; it is not inconsistent with the theoretical framework of evolution articulated by the founders of the synthesis.

Advances in developmental and molecular biology have not overturned the insights of the synthesis, but supplemented and indeed supported many of them. Nor does it appear that micro- and macro-evolution are fundamentally different kinds of process requiring different explanatory resources. Micro- and macro-evolution are continuous, both governed by the same processes, though often operating at different scales and at different levels of organization.

"Speciation and Macroevolution," Anya Plutynski. In: A Companion to the Philosophy of Biology [emphasis added]

What sorts of processes other than microevolution contribute to macroevolution? It's easier to understand by remembering that macroevolution isn't just about the development of new species. That's what people normally think of when they think of macroevolution, but in reality macroevolution refers to all evolutionary developments above the species level — including extinction, which is highly relevant here.

Species go extinct when they can't adapt to their changing environment and sometimes there's no way they could adapt because the environment changes far too quickly — for example, when a meteor hits. That is undeniably a "macro" event that can lead to extinctions and it's undeniably not an example of natural selection, mutation, genetic drift, or gene flow.

But it's not quite that easy. Extinction by meteor may not be microevolution, but it's still a case of a species not being able to adapt to a changing environment — and that's where we come back to the processes behind microevolution. In the end, even the various "macro" events that help drive macroevolution — climate, disaster, geology — don't operate independently of the "micro" processes of microevolution. For macroevolution to occur, you still need lots and lots of microevolution over extended periods of time.