What is the mechanism that prevents microevolution to become macroevolution?

Actually, *small genetic changes* (hair color, anatomical size, etc.) are tolerated by most YECs, as per NS.Only beneficient chromosomal mutations are viewed as unpalatable, except those science-hyped "hot-spot mutations" ... *mutations* that seem (to me) *built-into* prokaryote genes (A.K.A. ... just another form of NS).Fortunately, many YECs don't expect to see such raw chromosomal mutations in nature that are really beneficial, ... any more than they would expect to see computer programs evolving by coding accidents, program-flip-flipping, re-combinant operating system *mutations*, or similar choatic events.Unfortuantely, macro-ToE theories DO require *unusual yet chaotic* chomosomal mishaps (not a few). Such *freak-miracles*, "hopeful-monster" theories, etc., seem to require a great deal of pseudo-faith, I think some here would agree.Evo-Science seems to require true-faith that mutational-hypotheses can be proven. Beneficial Mutations (proper) in nature (if there be such a thing): have they ever really been proven, AT ALL?I suppose we'd be better off to debate what a beneficial chromosomal mutation REALLY is. A great oxymoron? a mega-science-paradox? A giant fluke of nature? Spontaneous generation? Etc.(OFF TOPIC: Not all *devout-YECs* require YECism to mathamatically support the Bible, the Flood, etc. Even while scientists vainly *prove* mega-evolution, the Christian-YEC would hope somewhat beyond this *backyard-universe*, anyway ... i.e., for sin-redeeming-love. He/she might continue to observe Biblical chronologies as symmetries of time more than equations of time. ... like the periodic-table of elements, octaves of sound-frequencies, light-spectrums of color, and/or other symmetries of nature)(Archer ... My wife is from TaiSan, beautiful country over there)

---

DISCLAIMER: No representation is made that the quality of scientific and metaphysical statements written is greater than the quality of those statements written by anyone else.

What do you mean "occasional"? I'm stating that the diversity of life requires at least 10 billion of such impossible *beneficial* mutations. EVERY genus and/or species of life seems to me to require at least one to a billion of such *impossible beneficial* mutations. Granted, the term 'chaotic' may seem a misnomer. (Like an astro-physicist arguing 'matter' vs. 'mass' in the equation E=mcc) But it begs the point. I mean, what non-chaotic driving mechanism could possibly account for ANY raw chromosomal mutations at the genome level?Surely your own thoughts betray you, W.K. How can you (an honest research scientist) downplay chaotic gene duplicatons in macro-evolution (A.K.A. 'beneficial mutation')?

---

DISCLAIMER: No representation is made that the quality of scientific and metaphysical statements written is greater than the quality of those statements written by anyone else.

Thanks Equinox for your coherent math; we might both agree:1) *Raw beneficial mutations* (including *parallel ones*) (chromosomal splitting, coupling, doubling etc.) must be a *mind-boggling* number vs. merely "occasional" mutations ... for macro-evolution to be feasible at any level.2) You're completely ON TOPIC as you ponder *raw mutations* only (vs. NS). (Thank you for NOT bringing NS into the equation)But remember, I'm playing totally against any such mutations (at any level) as having any real 'survival benefit' to account for (1) speciation or (2) *higher-life forms.Such mutation may have been reported by post-Darwinists, the pope, science authority, the savior, and/or an angel from Persia . But scientifically, proclaiming mutational mechanisms as unraveling the cosmos seem a bit silly (to me) to entertain on any level . e.g., . Quarks unraveling into Photons and sub-atomic particles
. Inflationary pre-Big-Bang events unraveling into (E=mCC) equations and laws
. Molecules unraveling into chromosomes, proteins, carbohydrates, epithelia, etc.
. Life-forms unraveling in every niche from beneficial mutations
. Souls unraveling from plankton mutations
. Etc.Fast-forward such pseudo-mutations (if you will) and we have the *scientific*-fable of the mega-ToE.

If WK, Quetzel, you, or anyone would mechanistically explain a single beneficial mutation pressure as a valid mechanism for speciation, I request you explain where on a gene this is viable:1) Mutation in 'plasmids', 'mutable areas?', "hot spots?" (Then you'd agree beneficial mutation is just a misnomer for 'inherent adaptability')2) Mutation in highly conserved sequences of the genotype? (I trust your answer is "no" to 'hopeful monsters')3) Then, raw beneficial mutations are *really occurring* somewhere between these 2 extremes of (1) 'mutable areas' (biological misnomers) and (2) 'highly-conserved areas' of the gene(s) (impossible mutations)?Thus, do you percieve *mutable-highly-conserved-genes* (#3 above) as an acceptable oxymoron, as part of an honest hypothesis, or as part of a valid mechanism for beneficial mutation(s)?(Note: please continue to focus on valid mutational pressures only)

---

DISCLAIMER: No representation is made that the quality of scientific and metaphysical statements written is greater than the quality of those statements written by anyone else.

Thankyou for responding.Albeit, you just bashingly-handwaved off my questions with nonsensical off-topic evasions, like: "Mutational pressures ... no such thing", "Where did you learn biology?" (BTW, Rockhurst College, Kansas City), "Do you even know what a plasmid is?", etc. (EZ, I can bash much of what you state (in conscience), but that's neither science, good-will, nor on-topic). I'll simplify best I can as a stupid 'Dorothy-like' podiatrist (with my 4 non-AL science degrees, MSBS (Barry Univ, Miami), AASEET (Craven Cmpty College, NC), BS-Psychology (Univ of DE), and DPM (Barry Univ, Miami) ... If I explained to my cat the fallacy...Beneficial Mutation *occurs* in
(1) Non-highly conservative portions? ... and/or
(2) Highly-conserved portions (of DNA)?Which is it EZ? I (presently) perceive that your classic AIDS virus *ontogeny* is NO *raw mutation*, just another genetic adaptation within a "highly-conserved" viral gene pool (1)...... a biological-misnomer for *raw mutation* ... in your case, genetic adaptation only, within the HIV gene pool.(Note, I invite any of you biologists and laymen to invalidate my logic)

---

DISCLAIMER: No representation is made that the quality of scientific and metaphysical statements written is greater than the quality of those statements written by anyone else.