Animals reproduce after their own kind, that is what we observe.
Exactly when have we observed an odd-toed ungulate evolve into an even-toed ungulate (or vice versa) within 6,000 years?
However there is variation within those kinds and if you want to call that evolution fine, I will call it micro-evolution.
But wait one minute: Genesis 1:24 tells us that livestock are comprised of one set of "kinds" and that wild animals are comprised of another set of "kinds". IOW (for large mammals, at least), a "kind" is not so large that it includes both domesticated species and wild species.
In defining horses and deer as being the same "kind", you've extended the term "kind" so far that
all ungulates are a "kind".
How can Genesis 1:24 still be true, then? If domestic cattle and wild buffalo are a different "kind", then horses and deer can't be the same "kind"... but Genesis 1 says that livestock and wild animals are of separate "kinds".
In order to defend a literal interpretation of Genesis 6-7, it seems you've contradicted Genesis 1.
And BTW: if you accept evolution to the point that you accept the idea of separate
orders of species evolving from a common ancestor, then you accept evolution, period. At that point, any "macro/micro" distinction is useless - you've officially put on the jersey and you're cheering for Darwin's team.
But it really is natural selection, not mutations and natural selection. It is the natural selection of the genes needed to survive and flouish in the world in which God made and put into the genes of each kind during creation week.
Any sort of evolution, including so-called "micro-evolution", involves mutation.