Hypermacroevolution? Hypermicroevolution

Before we spend any more time bashing modern taxonomy it's worth noting that it is NOT based on evolution. Carolus Linnaeus was a Creationist who died two decades before Charles Darwins birth. The original definition of a species was "a creature created independantly by god", the modern system generally ammends this to a creature which is sexually issolated. With much debate over whether it must be unable or unwilling to reproduce. Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family & Genus were then decided on pure supposition but have proved a sensible framework for evolutionary studies.Interestingly it was Linnaeus (Once again a creationist) who placed humans in the primate order.In a letter to Johann Georg Gmelin dated February 25, 1747 (112yrs B4 Orgn Of Specs.)Linnaeus wrote:"It is not pleasing that I placed humans among the primates, but man knows himself. Let us get the words out of the way. It will be equal to me by whatever name they are treated. But I ask you and the whole world a generic difference between men and simians in accordance with the principles of Natural History. I certainly know none. If only someone would tell me one! If I called man an ape or vice versa I would bring together all the theologians against me. Perhaps I ought to scientifically",He seems kind of scared to say what "he ought" around "the theologians".

I didn't mean that to sound negative, just to point out that the Linnean system does use interbreeding or "sexual isolation" to seperate species.
Which if anything is a credit to the reasoning which has independantly reached the same conclusion on this board in the concept of a "kind".A major debate in taxonomy is whether artificial or exceptional breeding such as between lions and tigers should be seperate species, once again mirrored on this board. I'm just saying that the system being evolved independantly here does have many similiarities with the modern Linnean,
which is great.

Hey,
I was wondering at what point does Creationism preclude Evolution. Is it against creationism to believe that the "kinds" on the Ark could naturally evolve into more species, say the Ark frog into the green tree frog and poison arrow frog. Or even further down the line is the rapid evolution of the influenza virus, or the evolution of anti-biotic resistance in bacteria acceptable.

"It is not pleasing that I placed humans among the primates, but man knows himself. Let us get the words out of the way. It will be equal to me by whatever name they are treated. But I ask you and the whole world a generic difference between men and simians in accordance with the principles of Natural History. I certainly know none. If only someone would tell me one! If I called man an ape or vice versa I would bring together all the theologians against me. Perhaps I ought to scientifically", -Carolus Linnaeus, Creationist founder of Taxonomy

Ok so this discussion is kind of trapped at what is a "kind".
Could kinds be "The set of common ancestors which inEdited by qed, : clarify

quote:

---

"microevolution is the necessary mechanism in the case of the flood. Why so? Because if all of the kinds were present on the ark, the amount of variation necessary to result in today's species is relatively little, and well within the observed range of variation for a species, as I will show."

---

So what is Microevolution, i know many examples have been given but to
discuss it further a hard (creationist) definition is neeeded. The evolutionary definition is evolution within a species but not leading to a divergent species. This obviously fails to allow the creation of new species from the kinds within the ark, so...

quote:

---

microevolution is the necessary mechanism

---

Important to note that in traditional science micro and macro evo relate only to degrees of evolution having the same mechanism.Edited by qed, : No reason given.