That's not how sources work. You can't just google a few and copy/paste.

I can tell you didn't even read your "sources" since the one I randomly picked, the 2nd one, has the conclusion "Bioavailability and the efficiency of transfer of the ingested POPs across trophic levels are not known and the potential damage posed by these to the marine ecosystem has yet to be quantified and modelled."

It basically says the harm is unknown.

I didn’t claim these were sources of either point, I said these were the first five links. Not even the first five studies, but the first five results. Thus illustrating how a minimum of effort can be employed to engage in good faith with another’s point. It was a deliberate choice to not editorialise what was returned.

Rest assured I am aware of the conclusion of each, just as I am aware of which ones are the best choices to nitpick.

But you said "There is abundant evidence that microplastics are destroying marine ecosystems."

"Destroying". So clearly your position is based on studies. Why would you just share search results and not the studies that prove microplastics are "destroying" ecosystems.

Reread the usernames and you’ll see you’re misquoting me. I’m not the person you asked for the studies.

My mistake!