What is the mechanism that prevents microevolution to become macroevolution?

There are many reasons to believe that there may have been a number of severe population size bottlenecks on the lineage leading to living humans, principally because of the many speciation events that must have occurred.

Yes, of course. THAT'S WHAT SPECIATION DOES, IT SEVERELY REDUCES GENETIC DIVERSITY.

Faith shouts:
Yes, of course. THAT'S WHAT SPECIATION DOES, IT SEVERELY REDUCES GENETIC DIVERSITY.So the act of speciation, which creates more species, means less genetic diversity. Then according to such logic, an infinite amount of species would have the least genetic diversity, while one species would have the most genetic diversity. Does that also mean that an infinite amount of numbers would have the least numerical diversity, while one number has the most numerical diversity?

hey are addressing "anatomical and archaeological" evidence for this supposed bottleneck. I wanted a GENETIC indicator of a bottleneck since others here, jar anyway, claim it's so OBVIOUS.

well, what SORT of "mark?" What's wrong with all taht junk DNA as such a "mark?" I mean billions of human beings died in that event; it should have left a pretty dramatic "mark."

You ask if speciation means less genetic diversity. I have two answers, not necessarily and probably. You have to keep the proper frame of reference.

The argument boils down to stating the subset of genes in one species is greater than the set of all genes of all species, which is obvously false by definition.

Your model assumes no mutation can ever exist, "good," "bad," or otherwise.

Additionally, if humans and chimps share 98% of the genetic code, where did the other 2% come from? Bacterial devolution? Degeneration from the fall? Subsets being greater than sets?

Mendel’s “Developmental” Bionomial, Boole, and Relational Database Normal Forms - Using 1-D Frieze Patterns to take apart the the “+” in the symbolization of “A+2Aa+a”ABSTRACT--During a period in the history of biology that SJ Gould feels can be phased, organismic biologists realized that they had not properly focused on their level of preference, the organism, as molecular biology advanced. This has resulted in various versions biophilosophy and the plausible relations of contingency to form-making and translation in space among creatures. The cause of this failure in inution of a phenotype is due to failure in the history of logic to extend its line of thought theoretically far enough to be incident with outlines of form-making that might be co-ordinated Cartesiastically. Advances in the molecular nature of inheritance provide a means to support Mendel’s original use of the form of maths’ bionomial through the use “ornaments.” The traditional/classic/standard explanation that a disagreement over adaptive vs non-adaptive traits was the “fall guy” is thus shown false and the actual reason becomes a failure to project theoretical structures into the area of visible comparative ability, subjectively held by biologists. Application is made to the biology of Lichens and a potential niche construction among Cicadas, CicadaKiller Parasitic Wasps and Fowler’s Toads.+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Olby wrote 93/4:” Added to this evidence is the well-known absence of double letters to represent the pure breeding offspring of hybrids in Mendel's scheme. Thus the three classes in this second hybrid generation (F2) are given the symbols: A + 2Aa + a rather than AA + 2Aa + aa. If these letters refer to the hereditary elements or factors to which Wilhelm Johannsen later gave the name 'gene', we would expect Mendel to have used double letters for each class. To defend Mendel's claim to the gene concept geneticists have indulged in special pleading thus: 'It is but an abridged way of expression. It was perfectly clear to Mendel that those elements occurred paired in homozygotes . . .' Or: 'throughout the papers (and even in his later correspondence with the botanist Ngeli) he has described the three classes of individuals in an F2 as A, Aa and a, evading the unproved doubleness of the "homozygote" AA class.' “
Olby's "Mendel, Mendelism, and Genetics," at MendelWebThis is why I take apart the “+” rather than focus on sexual group selection issues over the sign”\” between pollen and seed etc generalized to any living thing.The reason that the unknown or neutral phenotype arose by the early 70s was because the “doubleness” that differentiates the work of Fisher, Haldane or Wright , (Kimura etc) is false and due to a decomposable situation statistically where a ring field replaces a Cartesian space but because Russell ruled against a particular kind of mathematical proof about “ limits” the narrow focus of Boole’s x^2 only dominated the language of biology such that not even the restrictions of Woodger’s attempts (or others analytically) could be furthered within the organism and instead the plan was frustrated by criticism outside biology (creationism etc) This false double or false positive can be recomposed by splitting the “/” sign into group theory symbols of 1-D Freize patterns when ordinated to actual effective population numbers.The lie is thus given to “overcrowding” as the first and foremost image of the surface of transformative biological potential and the notion(Gould SETH 473) of wedging(Darwin) is shown erroneous because the Mendelization of population genetics with Freize pattern decompositions has increased the place of genetic rotation and revolution (Gould on Goldschmidt and D’Arcy Thompson (Gould SETH 463”He then praises D’Arcy Thompson for locating the phyletic meaning of these ideas in small mutational changes in rates, operating early in development to yield saltational origin of a new adult phenotypes”’’ “)without altering the mathematics of analytic geometry. The prejudice of 2-D is revealed as “saltational origin” and first order logic only in relational databases constricted by the historical relay from Boole’s resticted rules to X^2 only, in “perception.”

So, is there a reduction of genetic diversity? Not really, the sum population still possesses the full diversity of alleles among its 30,000 genes. However there has been a reduction of genetic diversity as seen in each population.

What does "common sense" have to do with anything? To you common sense is clearly something different than to me.

Wounded King writes:...At most it (macroevolution) requires, in order to fit the diversity of life we see today, occasional duplications at the gene and higher levels up to that of the entire genome.

Wounded King writes:These need not be 'chaotic' although they are likely to be random.