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!
Where to begin...
You claim macro-evolution between species but these are in fact the same kind as the DNA obviously reveals.
You claim micro-evolution would have to be far faster than your ‘evo measurements / observations’ - since it is only observed within the last several hundred years at varying rates you only require longer time frames to fit your old earth assumptions imho.
RE: Rats and mice I have no opinion on the matter of where macro begins and micro ends. My personal opinion is that there must be some other mechanism to drive the development of new successful genetic information. Other than random mutation.
If everything we see on earth today was on the ark then there would be no way for you to infer a rapid development of genetic material. Until you can show what exists today but did not exist on the ark your whole point fails.