Peppered moth "evolution"?

One of the lies told by evolutionists is that microevolution over time leads to macroevolution.  Berkeley.edu explains it this way:

Microevolutionary change might seem too unimportant to account for such amazing evolutionary transitions as the origin of dinosaurs or the radiation of land plants — however, it is not. Microevolution happens on a small time scale — from one generation to the next. When such small changes build up over the course of millions of years, they translate into evolution on a grand scale — in other words, macroevolution!

The peppered moth is perhaps the most famous example of “microevolution.” You may recall studying the peppered moth in highschool biology. It’s considered a textbook example of evolution via natural selection.  In case you don’t remember, let me briefly recap what has been claimed of the peppered moth.

The peppered moth is a species of moth in England that come in varieties of light and dark. Prior to the industrial revolution, the population of moths was mostly (approximately 98%) light.  They matched the lichen on trees and it was believed their light color helped camouflage them from being seen and eaten by birds.  

When the industrial revolution began, soot from the factories settled on the trees and killed the lichens.  Now, the darker variety of moth was better camouflaged against trees and the lighter moths were seen and eaten more by birds.  Over a few years, the population became mostly dark moths.

Eventually, factories became cleaner, the soot was cleaned up, and the lichen returned to the trees.  Consequently, the population of moths eventually returned to being mostly light.  

While this might fit the technical definition of evolution, I think it could be the worst example of evolution I’ve ever seen.  Let me explain.  As I’ve said, evolutionists tend to conflate micro- and macroevolution. Regarding the peppered moth Bionity.com said this:

Critics have pointed out that the "peppered moth story" showed only microevolution, rather than the important macroevolutionary trend of speciation…  Biologists agree with this point, and accept that correlation between soot on tree trunks and observed melanism in the moths is not proof of the theory of evolution as a whole. However, many do not accept the supposed distinction between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" as being part of the modern evolutionary synthesis which equates the two, instead taking the view that the mechanisms of microevolution and macroevolution are the same, the only difference being of time and scale.

You can see that the clear implication is that microevolution + time = macroevolution. The tiny changes (microevolution), like we saw in the peppered moth, over long periods of time, will lead to larger changes (macroevolution) in the species. So here's the question: It's been more than a century since the peppered moth study. What "macroevolution" has occurred? Now, I know what you're going to say. 100 years isn't enough time. But think very carefully and tell me this: what "microevolution" has occurred in the last 100 years? Don't think too hard because I'm going to tell you. None. The ratio of light/dark moths has changed back and forth to a net change of ZERO! There was not even microevolution!  The change is not accumulating nor can it. If birds continuously ate one color of moth, it will never add new colors to the population no matter how long it occurs.

Let me be clear: evolution does not occur at all - neither micro nor macro.  For evolution to occur, traits must be added to a population. For a dino to become a bird, for example, you need to add feathers. Natural selection removes traits from a population. Birds eating one shade of moth is an example of natural selection and demonstrates one way traits could be removed. Therefore, natural selection is the opposite of evolution. The “little” changes we observe in populations (the removal of traits or the rearranging of existing traits) will never amount to anything. It would be wrong to call them microevolution. 

Evolutionists give no consideration to the types of changes we observe. By their own admission, the only difference they see between micro- and macroevolution is time and scale. They believe the same mechanisms drive both and the accumulations of small changes (micro) will amount to big changes (macro) over time. That’s like believing you could turn a molehill into a mountain by continuously removing dirt; you just have to dig long enough!