What is the mechanism that prevents microevolution to become macroevolution?

Isn't the greatest proposed bottleneck of all time the "flood bottleneck?" From one pair, through all that inbreeding, to the diversity of genetic failure we now observe?[cheapshot] Why are fundies so comfortable with inbreeding anyway?[/cheapshot]

Faith shouts: 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?Guess up is down when you can't tell the difference.

The proper frame of reference is called common sense instead of irrational fanaticism. Your model assumes no mutation can ever exist, "good," "bad," or otherwise.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.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?Please consider the role of common sense when making assertions.

Under my belief in evolution, as supported by overwhelming evidence, what I said is common sense. What I forgot was unlike 99.9% of all biologists, you are arguing from a position against evolution.Unfortunately, and probably because I am becoming ill with "school-start flu," I was arguing from my position of commmon descent over 3.7 billion years as fact rather than as open to debate.In other words, given that you apparently don't believe in evolution, the logic in my posts naturally does not make sense to you.After this, I will try to argue acknowledging the constraints of your assumptions, so my posts, at least to you, make more sense and are less abrasive.ABE - Given evolution over 3.7 billion years, saying there is less gentic diversity today than there was in any pool of single-celled common ancestors, would be a violation of common sense. But of course one would have to buy into the "given" part of that sentence for such a conclusion to be so blatantly irrational.Sorry, mind too fogged with illness to make myself clear as I would like.Edited by anglagard, : Clarity.