Micro-evolution is variation within a kind and macro-evolution is said to result from a lot of micro-evolution, but it is really a change of "kind".
Variations within a kind indicate that all the genetic information is already available within the species, but through isolation of features, certain characteristics become more prominent. With the breeding of dogs, this is what takes place--not the creation of new genetic material, but the isolation and selection of the information that is already there.
In Genesis 1, the phrase "according to their own kind" comes up quite a bit. The word kind, I've heard somewhere, could encompass all members of the dog family, including wolves, coyotes, etc.
Macro-evolution requires new information, a change in the chromosome count (at some point), and is by definition different from variations within a kind. So, macro-evolution is definitely not a bunch of variations within a kind. Macro-evolution demands that it break outside of its own kind. No matter how many variations within a kind occur, with the same chromosome count and isolation or selection of information that exists, no new information is ever created and the chromosome counts never change.
Everything we have ever observed falls into variations within a kind, with no chromosome count change and no new information. Fruit flies may have extra wings, but the information for wings was already there. It was just replicated in the wrong spot. The scientific method of observation and replication confirms that things do reproduce after their own kinds.
Macro-evolution has never been observed. What we do observe is different kinds in the fossil record. The assumption that one kind evolved into another is just that--an assumption. The only evidence is similarity, which is circumstantial evidence at best. Finding the bones of a species only tells us that the species existed. It does not tell us it evolved from another.
Again, all observable, repeatable, scientific experimentation confirms that species reproduce after their own kinds. To blindly accept that species reproduce after other kinds just because other kinds exist is certainly not science.
The creation model says that all kinds were created and reproduce after themselves. If we ask whether or not the evidence fits this model, it seems pretty clear that it does. We see "kinds" reproducing after their own kind all the time. Some variations within a kind go extinct, like the dodo bird and others, but they all reproduce after their own kinds.
The evolution model rests on something that has never been observed despite much experimentation, so it rests on something that is presumed to occur despite science's inability to replicate it. When all experimentation fails to support a theory, it usually results in the discarding of that theory. In the case of evolution, however, the philosophical implications appear to be too significant for that to take place.