My understanding of the issue is that it is not a question of whether micro changes stop but, rather, are macro changes supported by the evidence. As I posted above:
...beginning in the early 1970's, this model (phyletic gradualism which is another way to say macro-evolution) was challenged by Stephen J. Gould, Niles Eldredge, and other leading paleontologists . They asserted that there is sufficient fossil evidence now to show that some species remained essentially the same for millions of years and then underwent short periods of very rapid change. Gould suggests that a more accurate model in such species lines would be punctuated equilibrium .
Granted, Gould is referring to only "some species" but I would argue that his theories are a far cry from Darwin's original ascertion.
Two other issues that scientists have tried to deal with when it comes to macroevolution are irreducible complexity and the issue of mathematical probabilities. In reference to the latter, I previously posted that Steve Wolfram in "A New Kind of Science" concluded there has not been sufficient time for random mutations to account for the diversity of life we see on the planet. Now, of course, he is proposing a new theory which I am currently studying given the book came out last week, but my point is that he feels it is necessary to propose a new theory at all.
One more time: I don't have my notes with me so I ask for the opportunity to extend and revise my remarks.
I usually stay away from threads likes this for just that reason - I can't stand the screaching. Also, I have found (and maybe you have too) that 99% of the people participating are waaay behind the curve on where the current debate lies. As a result, issues that have long been resolved and agreed upon by scholars on both sides end up being hashed out again and again and again. It so pointless.
Again, you guys are a pleasant exception. And, OBAFGKM, I haven't forgotten that I still owe you some examples from way back on post #19.