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

Since nothing in your post makes any sense at all and avoids touching on the questions at hand it is clear that continueing to converse with you is a waste of time.

Also I note your definition of "macroevolution" given in the previous post is useless. Whether the ultimate source is God or not has nothing useful to say about the change in life-forms on the planet that we observe since it's inception.

The textual evidence of Genesis corresponding with reality/design/IC/Cambrian/fossil record, and the three scientific facts in the preceding paragraph (GH/experimentation/fossil record) undermine and falsify the completely logical deduction of Darwinian macroevolution.

The evidential reasoning was cited by me and you have ignored = inability to refute.But it doesn't matter, Darwin withdrew, and logically, it was because he felt there wasn't any amount of evidence to support, yet his theory ploughed ahead - driven by atheistic needs.

Why post the preceding speculation in the first place then ? (rhetorical)

When I said speciation has not occurred/no evidence exists I was talking about Darwinian speciation.

The Bible accuracy Forum is part of the Science Forum.

90 percent of your post is ad hoc.

I will not go round and round with you and give dignity to a ignorant view denying the establish fact of genetic homeostasis.

What they all have in common is that they are the source/origin of something. Genetic homeostasis is caused by Genesis being true.

When you can falsify genetic homeostasis ...

I suspect the Admins let you by on previous reputation that did not hold up in this case.

Herepton writes:In my forth-coming Internet article titled "Darwinism Refuted" to be posted on a large Creationist website...

We could have handled a small Creationist website... but a large one???

razd writes: But at the large one it will receive more peer review eh? {more people will peer at it?}

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?

I suggest if you want to discuss editing differences beteen volumes of "Origin of Species" that you start a new topic as there is absolutely no way this is relevant to the discussion of genetic evidence for or against "macro" evoloution.Note in particular that the field of genetics came long after Darwin.

RAZD writes:vel 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).

So aren't you implying by your question that, "we don't know" is unacceptable for creationists who don't advocate evolution but ok for evolutionists?

RAZD writes:No, because it is creationists that claim that "macro"evolution is impossible (and thus they do claim to know). The question is: if it is impossible, then where is the mechanism that makes it impossible.Conversly, if no mechanism can be discerned, then why would "macro" evolution not be inevitable as just more "micro" evolution?

herepton writes:your macroevolution claim/theory makes perfect sense, that is the logic-based fact of macro produced by micro. We can observe so many similarities between species and connect them on this basis - producing a chain (to oversimplify), but nontheless accurate.

Message 25After a speciation separation, each population now has a new {stasis equilibrium} point that it will try to "center" (chose mates) around, and there is no mixing of genes between the divided populations so those {stasis equilibrium} points can diverge.But there are other population dynamics that are involved both before and after that are different. Take pelycodus: (Image copied to mirror site to save bandwidth originally from A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus)Where you see a general (normal) trend toward larger individuals as time passes, and then a speciation event with subsequest divergence between two populations. The right branch continues with the linear increase in size, however the left branch dives back to re-occupy the original {size\niche\function}. This would be forced by competition between the two groups, a selection pressure that doesn't happen while they are one population. Once they have diverged sufficiently that such competition does not threaten survival of one population, then each are free to take whatever evolutionary paths they want, but they will not be the same path - that bridge is burned.Note that the reduction in size is faster than the general increase in size. This is the effect of being de-linked.Note also that the population variation is restricted to the same general width rather than getting broader at each time level. This is the effect of the trendency towards stasis.Stasis doesn't have to be a result, btw, it can be {static relative to a continued trend} as above; it is just a tendency inherent in sexual selection (imho) towards average individuals in a population -- ie sexual selection could be a two-edged sword, allowing greater (liberal) mixing of genes along with quick (conservative) selection to omit extreme divergence.I tried to find the post where I had come to this conclusion last night and couldn't (silly ol search system + tired brain + impatience), but you can think of all the selection pressures that operate within a population and all the selection pressures that operate between populations as being the essential difference in the shape of the evolution that is observed.Wait, I finally found the post Which is further refined in You could also say that "micro" changes are not fixed in the population, as the population as a whole can revert under changed selection pressures (the way the beak size can revert). Whether the {features\alleles\variations} can become part of the defining characteristics of the species is debatable, as this gets into what distinguishes one species from another (especially on a timeline).Once a speciation has occurred those changes have become part of the {defining genome} of the species and so do become fixed (as part of the previous amount of variation is discarded in the divide), albeit still subject to "micro" changes around that {center\node\nexus}.Speciation is the dividing line then between "micro" and "macro" -- and once two speciation events occur in succession the fact that "macro"evolution (by this definition) has occurred cannot be denied either: that is all that is needed to show that evolutionary branches occur and that the result is a nested hierarchy, which is the basis of all upper level taxonomy divisions.You could also use the genetic differences between the species in these subsequent speciations and of their ancestors to validate the genetic tree derivations. I would think this has been done and that there would be ongoing work on it to refine the marker systems used (anybody know of papers on this?).You can't have "macro" without "micro" -- the basic mechanism of change is still the same -- but you could have "micro" without "macro" ... hence evidence of such effect is different than evidence of (species) change over time.