Techically, entropy is a measurement of the amount of energy available to do work (in the thermodynamic sense).
All those can form because the entropy of the larger system is increasing while there is a local decrease in entropy. As just one example, the zygote is taking in food (sugar) and converting that to energy + CO2 + H2O. That is increasing entropy. A small fraction of the energy released is captured by ATP and used to decrease entropy in the growing embryo.
Think of yourself cleaning the garage. Think of how warm you feel (you may even perspire). The garage is decreasing in entropy (getting more ordered) but that heat you are releasing is an increase in entropy (random infrared radiation). So, if you look at both you, the atmosphere of the garage, and the contents of the garage: the contents are decreasing in entropy but the atmosphere has a greater increase in entropy due to the CO2 and H2O you expel plus the infrared radiation that increases the random motion of air molecules. That increase in entropy is greater than the decrease of entropy of the contents of the garage.
Is that clearer?
Yep. Macroevolution is speciation.
I applaud your effort and yes, small changes accumulate and result in large changes. Also, there is no clear cut line between micro and macroevolution. But you need a better example. The problem is that it is very difficult for people to think of evolution as applying to populations as it is, and your example equates changes in an individual with evolution. It perpetuates a misunderstanding that can be a fatal impediment to understanding evolution.
"But we must ask, what exactly are these genera, families, orders, and so on? It was clear to Darwin, and it should be obvious to all today, that they are simply ever larger categories used to give names to ever larger clusters of related species. That's all these clusters, these higher taxa, really are: simply clusters of related species.
Thus, in priniciple the evolution of a family should be no different in its basic nature, and should involve no different processes, from the evolution of a genus, since a family is nothing more than a collection of related genera. And genera are just collections of related species. The triumph of evolutionary biology in the 1930s and 1940s was the conclusion that the same principles of adaptive divergence just described -- primarily the processes of mutation and natural selection -- going on within species, accumulate to produce the differences we see between closely related species -- i.e., within genera. Q.E.D.: If adaptive modification within species explains the evolutionary differences between species within a genus, logically it must explain all the evolutionary change we see between families, orders, classes, phyla, and the kingdoms of life. Niles Eldredge, The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism. pgs 76-77.