It is a recurring thing that I see often in threads on this forum when evolution is brought up and someone invariably from the Creationist side tries to go "Well, that's microevolution, no macroevolution?"
But I've never seen anyone make an attempt to actually explain what the barrier is that stops microevolution becoming macroevolution.
So, can anyone from Creationist side of the debate answer the question: what is the barrier between micro and macroevolution?
As referenced by the passage brought up by
@inquiring mind, the barrier between the two would be the barrier between one created "kind" and another. If genetic changes causes us to categorize a dog's offspring or a cat's offspring as a new breed, this doesn't mean they've become a new "kind" of animal. The Hebrew word translated "kind" isn't completely akin to any of the terms we use in taxonomy, however. Some kinds might be small akin to a a species, and other times it might be large, more akin to a family. Because of this, an alternative form of taxonomy focused on created kinds has been created, known as
baraminology.
Relatedly, the fact that real-life examples given of genetic mutations tend to be examples of organisms
losing, not gaining, information (e.g., fish
losing the ability to grow eyes, chickens
losing the ability to grow feathers, etc.) doesn't confirm macroevolution, since amoeba-to-human macoevolution requires the gaining of information--and a lot of it at that!
To avoid sounding like macroevolution is just "microevolution, but more," some creationists don't prefer the term "microevolution." They simply see genetic change in information (most, if not all, of which is
loss, not gain).