And this means what, exactly?
Baseless, unargued assertion.
There is a good reason for that: creationist dishonesty. They never properly define 'kind' and as soon as the evidence for one sort of organism turning into another becomes too strong for even them to deny, they just say they must have been the same kind all along.
False analogy. There is no equivalent here of a spring breaking. The mechanisms that drive microevolution don't have limitations. There is no mechanism that stops them at any point.
What creationists would have to do, if they were at all honest (fat chance!), is to properly define 'kind' and explain what the mechanism is that limits the processes of microevolution from ever breaking through that barrier.
And yet again you demonstrate that you don't understand what 'proof' means.