"Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism?

A {macro vs micro} genetic question for creationists:IF the concept of "kinds" is correct, THEN there must be mechanism(s) in the DNA that allows "micro"evolution but prevents "macro"evolution?At the level of DNA there is no real difference in all levels of organisms other than the progression of the different pairs of the appropriate (4) amino acids (CTAG).Random mutations can cause any pair to be changed to another, thus at the molecular level it is entirely possible to change one {"macro" organism} into another {"macro" organism} with the correct series of mutations of exactly the same kind as are known to occur in "micro"evolution.The whole system was supposedly set up during those original 6 days, so there must be a mechanism in place that prevents "macro"evolution ... what is the built-in biological mechanism that prevents this from happening? Where is it located? Why hasn't it been found?

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Mosquitoes have mutated, cause of all the DDT spraying, and other sprayings, but how are they not still the mosquitoe. With all the mutatagens you'd think they would of macro-evolved, not micro-evolved. We're talking about a lot of generations, like a lot of mutations, but they are still being expressed as the mosquitoe. I mean if one wants to know the scientific name of any creature, go to the library, and you can look at the characteristics, and know the creatures scientific name, you'd think if macro-evolution was actually a happenings, you would see creatures macro-evolving, instead of micro-evolving. I suppose God got it all right the first time around, and via the male female gene swapping of the gene pool its kind of self correcting, is some way, like how in pure bred dogs, after the tenth generation the damaged gene is believed to of be purged from the gene pool. It does appear once the gene pool is established it protects the subspecies, that micro-evolved from the biblical kind, kind of like the ring species, that micro-evolved into a defined sub species of the species. The bible talks of the clean and unclean creatures, meaning this was written over 2,ooo + years ago, in spite of all these generations experiencing mutations, we are interestingly only see these biblical kinds of creatures reproducing, they apparently have not macro-evolved into new kinds of creatures, just sub species within their species (kind), if one wants evidence supporting creation, just go to the library, to find books to identify, all of Gods Creatures, cause they are only reproducing like kind creatures.

What would you expect from the mosquito, its been bombarded with chemicals, its not then going to use a physical change (cept maybe a very minor one). Evolution takes a long time to get anywhere significant. Talking of dogs if you compare a mexican naked dog, a pug and a st bernard tell me then if you cant see the difference, hell its getting to the point where perhaps even their kind could maybe get confused as a few different ones im sure.Pure bred dogs are the worst effected by hereditary diseases by far, almost every pure alsation develops problems with its hips. The tenth generation and the bad stuff disappears sounds like a bit of folk lore to me.Unseul

---

Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life....
Blessed are those who can laugh at themselves, for they shall never cease to be amused.
Do unto others before they do unto you.

Sorry, you failed to address the question.The question is what is the mechanism that distinguishes between "micro" and "macro" at the molecular level.All you have given is another of your arguments from incredulity with no factual basis.Comparison of DNA between two closely related species, like dogs and wolves, shows similar differences in the DNA as comparison between to vastly diffeent species, like elephants and mice.What is the mechanism that says wolf to dog can happen, but mouse to elephant can't?KEY WORD: MECHANISM.enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

RAZD,I agree with you that the difference between 'micro' and 'macro' evolution is one that is much more significant to creationists than to those of us who affirm the theory of evolution by natural selection. However, let's not overstate the case. Your OP seemed to suggest that an organism could reproduce into a vastly different organism given the right mutations. Did you mean that the right series of mutations over a succession of generations could lead to significant morphological change, or are you trying to make a sort of "hopeful monster" argument? It's not clear from your wording.Similarly, this last post would appear to suggest that mice are somehow ancestral to elephants. I think I see what you're truly saying: if genetic links can be found between species (like wolves and dogs) that are acknowledged to be closely related, aren't we correct in inferring that the same sorts of genetic links point to a less recent (but still valid) common ancestry between, say, mice and elephants?In the past, creationists have said to me that DNA evidence can establish paternity of a human child, since obviously humans give birth to other humans. However, that same evidence can't be used to establish common ancestry between apes and humans, since creationism denies that they share a common ancestor. Their insistence that organisms give birth to 'like' organisms is not the issue: Darwinism merely maintains that the offspring are less and less 'like' their ancestors with every subsequent generation. In addition, factors such as geographical isolation can produce a subpopulation different enough from the ancestral one that we may consider the new population a separate species.I agree with you that genetic data support the assertion that this mechanism is responsible for biological diversity on much higher than the directly-observable 'micro' level. I'd be interested to see what the creationists have to say about the imagined 'barrier' to change above the micro level, since the genes seem to deny this rather forcefully.regards,
Esteban Hambre

Thanks for the critique. No I am not suggesting that mice are ancestral to elephants, but that the differences in DNA between mice and elephants is not a different mechanism than the differences in DNA between wolves and dogs.In essence you could take the DNA from one animal and rearrange it into the pattern of another animal within a {fertilized egg \ embrio} and the {full term result} would be the second animal. Note that recently a researcher took a specific segment of DNA from a fish and replaced the same segment in a mouse embrio and the DNA functioned appropriately -- for the mouse.For "Macro"evolution to be 'prohibited' there must be some mechanism that stops the genetic change at one level while allowing it at a lower level.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

no creationists want to try?the genetic difference between "micro" and "macro" evolution is???

We both know that there isn't going to be any reasonable takers for this. They haven't an idea.

simple!god does it!actually, i've wanted to know the creationist answer to this for a long time. it tend to phrase it as "what stops little changes from adding up?" but it makes more sense this way.seeing as how there is so little difference between us and chimps genetically. and remarkably little difference between chimps and bananas, genetically. it really only takes little changes.

Creationists do even better, Phillip Johnson in his collection of mistatements, out of context quotes, and outright lies otherwise known as the book Darwin on Trial, claims that species possess a genetic limit to variation. This is stated as a "fact" in his book yet no supporting evidence or reference to such a limit is given. This fictional limit is used to explain the barrier between micro and macro evolution.

well, yeah, but the question is asking for evidence of the actual mechanism that allows one kind of change but not the other, while preventing little changes from adding up.

looks like it is one of those "we believe there is a limit because if there wasn't a limit then we coudn't believe that it couldn't happen which happens to be what we believe ... I think" kind of arguments.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

honestly, i've never understood exactly why creationists are set against evolution.

They don't like the idea that we have a common ancestor as a fish.Just think back in history. Everything that fundies have done in the past have always been something that puts the human species in the center of "creation". If we have a common ancestor with a dog or cat, it kinda defeats the purpose of humans being god's favorite.

---

The Laminator

​