Yeah, an "observation" that appears only in "creation science" literature. Find and quote a usage in any peer-reviewed biology journal. I can guarantee you that no such language will appear.
"Evolutionists try to mash the two together in a classic post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy."
And, of course, wrong. The micro/macro-evolution fallacy is completely a figment of "creation science". The basic mechanism of evolution is well understood and scientifically proven---there is NO argument about it in science (not creation science). The only controversy is about some of the fine details to explain variations in the rate of generation of species change over time (punctuated equilibrium).
Of course, you are free to believe whatever you want---just don't try to teach it as science.
Translation: We can't find a model that accurately translates micro evolution to macro evolution.
And of course, the evolution literature makes no distinction. That's because they're engaging in a post hoc fallacy.