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

Go to OT for the topic
EvC Forum: "Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism?

There is only one mechanism that enacts the changes in species through time, and that is the DNA. Any change that does not make it into the DNA patterns of the genome fails to be reproduced.Thus IF the concept of "kinds" is correct, THEN there must be mechanism(s) in the DNA that allows "micro"evolution but prevents "macro"evolution?What are those mechanimsm and how do they act on one set of DNA molecules but cannot act on another set - DNA being the same four molecules in different patterns from one end to the other.IF "macro" evolution {doesn't occur\can't occur} THEN there must be a mechanism in place that prevents it ... what is the built-in biological mechanism that prevents this from happening? Where is it located? Why hasn't it been found?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/index.php?title=Macroevolu...Evolution; God's Greatest Creation

Interesting! Thanks.You accept the defintion that your links give for the "kind" as compared to biological taxa?

Thank you for the (rather humorous to me)^(*) bare links.This still does not answer the question of what the basic DNA level distinction that makes "micro" evolution a regular occurance in the natural world, but somehow prevents "macro" evolution.Perhaps you would care to excerpt the significant portions regarding this specific issue and then discuss then in your words?^(*) Creationists needed to create their own version of wikipedia -- a completely open source encyclopedia -- so that they can make up their own definitions of things ROFLOL. Let me guess whether it really allows open editing ...

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Hi herepton,On your first link there is a graphic suggesting that the hyaena is part of the "dog" kind. Can you explain how this is determined, and along with razd's question, what molecular process would prevent hyaenas arising via microevolution within (say) the cat kind?According to biological studies, hyaenas are very distant from dogs. Here's an example of a reasonable phylogeny for carnivora: Is the position of hyaenas in the baraminology of carnivores a mistake, and if so how would we spot it?Thanks!Mickedited to add a better picture for the carnivore phylogeny. Note that hayaena is actually on the cat branch. The biological features of hyenas are diagnostic of great similarity to cats, so the creationist wiki actually includes an example of macroevolution in a diagram aimed to show that only microevolution is possible!This message has been edited by mick, 10-23-2005 06:19 PM

This is a tricky question. If biological taxa is a species that only mates with like species in the wild then this is a non-sequitur. The links explain the reality of macroevolution which corresponds with reality as opposed to Darwinian macroevolution evading a Creator and the nonsense (not meant as an insult) their macroevolution scheme proposes.Ray

Actually, all he did was cite facts.

This is a Young Earth model that ASSUMES all animals died except those on the Ark. This model assumes the vast animal kingdom that now exists cannot be accounted for by the Deluge survivors on the Ark, therefore, they propose this macroevolution scheme. I am not a YEC and the best theist scholars are conspicuously silent as to the extent of the Deluge (worldwide or local). The value of the Model are the starting assumptions/Biblical base. Anyone can nitpick this YEC scenario to death; like the very young time duration their macroevolution scheme mandates. I posted the link to say the model makes infinetly more sense than yours; like "1998 analysis based on 12 proteins put cows closer to whales than to horses."Wells, "Icons of Evolution", page 51: citing: Cao, Janke, Waddell, Westerman, Takenaka, Murata, Okada, Paabo, Hasegawa, "Journal of Molecular Evolution" 47 (1998)This message has been edited by Herepton, 10-23-2005 04:01 PM

... facts that are irrelvant to the question asked. As was pointed out.What is the mechanism that prevents "macro" evolution but allows "micro"evoltion, given that there is one system of recording the overall changes in species through time: DNA, composed of 4 molecules in different patterns.Is there some magical mechanism that says this pattern can happen here, but not there?Take it one molecule at a time ... what stops the next one from being any one of the four specific molecules? Step by step to the end?You accept that "micro" happens: what is the genetic difference that prevents "macro" from happening?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

It's really not that unreasonable. According to the site all the canines are descended from an original UNCLEAN kind. So from that shrimp, dogs and pigs are all the result of macroevolution from the original UNCLEAN kind, as were skunks and buzzards and bears.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Indeed, it took about a minute. Why did you post it if it's not something you agree with and is something that is plainly wrong? You posted the link without commentary so it is difficult to know that was your intention.I haven't actually proposed a model here but I assume you are referring to the model accepted by biologists in general. So you will have to see if the general biological model is as easy to dismantle as your cited reference. For example was 12 the wrong number of proteins? Are proteins not biological features of an orgnaism? Something wrong with cows being closer to whales than horses?MickThis message has been edited by mick, 10-23-2005 07:04 PM

Do you not see the hypocrisy here? You are using a model that you specifically disagree with ...... to argue against another model that you specifically disagree with ...... but assume a validity for one that is not given to the other?In addition:all {A} is not{B}
not{B}, therefore {A}is logically invalid, there is no need for it to be {A} versus any other not{B}.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Hi razd,If you want to talk logic, you might want to take a look at Herepton's maths. The model has been accepted by Herepton as false, so in his view the amount of sense it makes is zero.How zero can be "infinitely more" than something is beyond me.Naughty Herepton!Mick

You have misrepresented.I agree with the basic scheme. Contrasted next to Darwinian macroevolution schemes the YEC is on the right track. Feigning like you do not know what's wrong with the cows being closer to whales than horses tells me and anyone else what you and all evos are about.Mick, you were the person who without hesitation challenged the YEC scheme by citing data that places hyenas in feline taxa rather than canine. Now you are playing stupid when you aint. This response has conceded the point.This entire thread - the one here:http://EvC Forum: All species are transitional -->EvC Forum: All species are transitional....is the old 1000 is reached by 1's each step/digit at a time rhetoric - an excuse explaining the embarrassing lack of transitional, ToE's reason for being evidence. IOW, all species are transitionals in lieu of the fact that we cannot find the physical links between them. If you are going to yawn and act like cows being closer to whales than horses does not upset the step by evolutionary step ox cart then I will invoke the foundational lunacy this "view" of yours is based upon: What is obvious is that you take the side of starting assumptions regardless the falsifying evidence. Evos assert we descended from chimps yet the DNA evidence says a resounding no. Whats the point of having evidence if your philosophy will be used to overrule ? This is rhetorical. You are refuted.Ray