I think you shouldnt forget to factor in all of the harmful mutations that can destroy the population as well.Well, that's a good question. Let's look at it. Could there possibly be enough useful mutations in the time we have, to produce new species, genera, families, orders, classes, phyla, kingdoms, and domains?
The first question is, "how many useful mutations can occur in one generation?" To know that, we need three numbers.
1. How big is the population?
2. How many mutations occur per individual in that population?
3. How many of them are potentially useful?
Now, this is complicated by issues like epistasis and environmental changes, but let's assume those are neutral for now. We can go back and add that to the model in a bit if you like. Generally, those things tend to favor evolutionary change, but not always. We have a good number of identified favorable mutations in humans, but what percentage of all mutations do you think are favorable? Give me a number, we'll try to match it up to the data, and then we can go on.
What do you think?
Also we have accepted that the definition for micro-evolution is a change in the allele frequency in populations. So your example of hybrid plants is actually an example of micro-evolution since the offspring remains a breeding part of the population.
Now about the gap theory. I wouldn't say its a scientific theory. Just a theory back by scientific evidence. And I'm not one of those people who get upset if someone doesnt believe in my particular theory of creation. Most of my christian friends believe in young earth. Also I will be the first to tell a person they are wrong if they try to pass a theory off as doctrine.