I understand your point. Common descent <> macro evolution, however.
Well, yes, of course, but here's that moving the goal post strategy. The normal (and only reasonably objective and operational) definition of "macro-evolution" is "evolution above the species level," as opposed to microevolution being evolution which does not surpass that species level. Therefore any evolutionary process which leads to the creation of a new species is macroevolutionary.
Creationists cannot accept this definition of macroevolution, since (the vast majority) do not hold to fixity of species, and would therefore have to admit that "macroevolution" occurs. So for them "macroevolution" would mean the evolution of a new "kind". But since there is no definition of "kind," or even correspondence with the abstraction of a higher taxa, then, to adapt what you said in a prior message: "[Macro]Evolution doesn't happen because the boundaries of [the creationist] taxonomy [of 'created kinds'] are adjusted."