What scientific argument disproves macroevolution, and what does Humani Generis say about it?

It does not really matter whether it is macro or micro, because you have to start with micro: with atoms and molecules, the basic form of nature. If you cannot prove the micro, you cannot prove the macro. Micro is the toughest part to validate, because you have to have a mechanism. Take DNA, the most complex molecule ever, with its four proteins on the double helix in every cell; you need messenger RNA and something that drives mitosis and meiosis, and evolution cannot find that mechanism at the basal parts of nature. So micro evolution has no mechanism to drive it, and that is where it stops. Here is a factoid most Catholics ignore, since maybe ninety to ninety-five percent of them believe in evolution: Pius XII in his encyclical Humani Generis said, in paragraph 36, that you can discuss evolution and see what they think, but in paragraph 37 he said the Catholic does not have such liberties, because of polygenism, the belief that there was more than one Adam, hundreds or thousands of hominids becoming human all over the world at the same time. That is a problem because original sin was brought into the world by one human couple, Adam and Eve, and passed to every human descended from them. If there were thousands of hominids becoming human, you cannot transmit original sin to them. Pius XII says that unless you can figure out how original sin could be reconciled with polygenism, you cannot believe or teach evolution, and he adds that it does not appear there is any solution to the problem. No one has produced an answer the Vatican has approved, so groups like Catholic Answers who tout evolution while ignoring this have no right to teach it.