Most creationists believe that ‘macro’ evolution is something that hasn’t been observed. Like Santa Claus. It has a name but that doesn’t mean you believe in it.
Both rats and mice (Or gorilla and Orangutan) could be on an Ark of course so I’m not sure how that makes a point here.
I didn't ask if they could have been on the Ark - I asked you if you would consider the change between a mouse and a rat to be a “micro” change or a “macro” change.
As is all too typical - Creationist is of absolutely no use and has no answers - you are apparently far too confused about the subject to even give your opinion.
The point is that Creationists apparently are quite willing to accept evolution and the (semi) common descent of species - at many thousands of times the rates observed - resulting in changes well in excess of the DNA difference between humans and chimps.
So a 2% change in genetic DNA between two rodents of the same “kind” is easily accomplished in a few hundred years - and is only a “micro” difference - but a 2% change in genetic DNA between humans and chimps is absolutely impossible even over six to seven million years and is obviously a “macro” difference.
Do you see a problem with the above formulation?
If not you might be a Creationist!