Understand, I am not the least threatened theologically by the idea of macro-evolution. I believe in the Designer for both scientific reasons and personal experience, but I'm not worried about how He went about building life. But neither will I simply accept the bull that what works at micro level automatically works the same way at a macro level. I've read a bit too much scientific literature to fall for that.
You need to be able to prove it, experimentally. Given the existence of extremely short-lived lifeforms, it should be possible. Have they ever bred a fruit-fly into an arachnid, to pick one example?
We've managed to create mutant fruit-flies with third eyes or superfluous wings. We've managed to breed fruit-flies to have new color variations, just as we have with dogs. Whoopie. But they remain fruit-flies. Why?
Likewise, we've bred dogs that range in size from poodles to great danes. But we've not managed to breed horse-sided riding dogs yet, have we? Why not? What's the mechanism that keeps dogs from getting much bigger than they are now?
We don't know yet. But not knowing doesn't change the facts, and the fact is that we know from experience that there are limits to how much we can change an animal by selective breeding. We may be able to overcome those limits as we learn more about genetic manipulation--but that would prove ID, not macro-evolution.
Is the penguin an example of bird-micro-evolution, or was it just created to swim instead of fly? How about the hyena? Was it created as a hyena, or is it an example of cat-micro-evolution (gone awry)? How about the porpoise? Mammal micro-evolution, or deliberately created as a sort-of-fish-with-lungs?