There is no distinction between "micro" and "macro" evolution. The latter is just a lot of the former. Those terms are also not used by real biologists. They were invented by creationists specifically so they could concede examples of evolution that can be directly observed (in single celled organisms, because they live, reproduce and die so rapidly) but still deny that it happens to multicellular life, or that it can proceed far enough that speciation occurs.
The problem with this is that evolution does not only happen to small things. It acts on anything capable of self-replicating with occasional copying errors (mutation). There are also no magical boundaries that stop evolution at a certain point, preventing a species from changing until it is unrecognizable.
The concept of "kinds" is another one that only creationists take seriously. It does not exist in biology. Creationists say "Wolves can evolve into dogs but they both still look like dogs, so they are the same kind." To say that they look samey to human beings is not terribly scientific.
There's also the matter of the archaeopteryx. It is a clear example of a proto=bird but with saurid features, such as the dinosaur snout with sharp teeth instead of a beak. Interestingly, the genes for those saurid features have not been lost, just switched off, and still exist in the genome of modern birds.
Because of this, scientists have been able to switch those genes back on in fertilized chicken eggs, and the resulting chicken embryos had dinosaur shaped snouts with teeth instead of a beak.
Birds have those genes because they descended from dinosaurs. Fish don't have those genes. Insects don't have them. Are birds and dinosaur the same "kind"? I would say not, they look(ed) very different. So then how does a creationist explain the archaeopteryx fossil remains, or the dormant saurid genes in modern birds?
RE: Were the seven days of creation in Genesis seven twenty four hour periods? - Where do these notions originate?