Pigeons and Dogs: Micro or Macro evolution?

I am a creationist. While many creationists are conservative on what constitutes micro/macro change. Others like myself are liberal. all we need to do is keep it in kind. What's kind is a problem but we have severe time limits.
For example the snake at the fall lost his legs but was still a snake. Also because there was no death in the animal kingdom before the fall and afterwards nothing but then there must of been great structural change in bodies to deal with predation and being hunted.The change in dogs and piegans in a short time is a welcome thing to creationism. We need quick changes to account for the diversity and we call it micro change.
But a dog is a dog and not a kangaroo or halfway there.
The changes in dogs is minor or micro as it does not change its name as you admit.
Rob

For the discussion a dog is a dog does do the trick. it is another point about what a dog is and I agree that deciding what the divisions are is a problem.
For example I myself have no problem seeing bears and dogs as all from the same one that came off the Ark. I was impressed by how similiar the bear is to the dog and in the fossil record (post flood as I see it or post cret/ter line for you) how phrases like bear-dog were used and other examples of overlap.
I think I'm saying that for discusion between micro/macro we can use the present words that the world uses.
Rob

Your defining things out of meaning.
I mean the word dog is the word the world uses for a kind of creature and otherwise I don't understand your point.
Rob

Yes the k/t boundary is the flood event.
Perhaps you make a good point here about what qualifys as doginess in order to determine when offspring are no longer a dog.
Since the creature is unknown its difficult to answer this. And basic looks don't tell the tale.
Since the fall changed all creatures in thier looks and yet kept them in kind it is a problem. However since it has been a short time the changes would only be and only could be limited.
A dog not being a kangaroo is a difference beyond time supplied so we can draw such conclusion it is a different kind.
However macro/micro to a creationist is the big differences and indeed the line vague.
Rob

As I said I suspect bears and dogs are the same kind and they are similiar on inspection so how can I answer your question.
So the word dog isn't good to talk about macro/micro.
Rob

We don't look similiar to apes.
Also I'm not sure about this but I believe the DNA of all animals is quite close to ours. The 97% should not be confusing the picture that it is greatly higher then with a rabbit. Again I can't quote.
Also this DNA thing is not proof of origin or connection only that like form will have like DNA. One blueprint.
Rob

Creationists don't know what the original kind is. Only that it can't be too off the mark of the present kinds. The need of kind to be similiar and time problems.
Rob

The length of time is short and change within creatures thus is short.
As to how much a species can change is evidenced by what has happened.
Snakes with poison and not is a change (as only one kind came off the ark)but into koala is clearly unnessesary.Your thing about all kinds today from the Ark makes my point. They change alittle all at once and no great time is needed. I see species change as fast (generations) in coming into new niches and fossil evidence will not deny this.
Rob

This is off thread and been dealt with before for sure. I'm fine with the subject again but not here
Rob

Since the Bible makes clear there are kinds then creationists and everyone have a boundary there somewhere. I guess its not impossible kinds could change but it seems the Bible has them in a fixed boundary. Also great differences would require great change and it seems fine to say most changes are micro level (though liberal) and not the great changes Toe requires.
i guess the micro/macro line is something Toe'ers can strike at but it misses the big picture. we are just accomadating small changes within our model (I would expand it) and forcing Toe to show real evidence for big changes.
Rob

True the Tasmanian wolf and our wolf looked similiar. I would say because they are the same creature.
That thier DNA is different (if so since the Tasmanian one is long time gone)could be accounted for by the marsupialism and other anatomical differences. But not different origin. I mean who knows what DNA really accounts for in its difference. Perhaps reproductive stuff counts for more.
I would add these two different wolves go to the heart of the matter.
If you could demostrate the wolfs coming from diferent rodent origins etc it would show great change. However thier similarity almost insists from our point of view that these creatures came off the Ark.
Rob

The separation of kinds in the Bible SEEMS to insist they can't be breached. And theres no evidence of note to suggest they have been as we see it.
Any separation of kind theefore we put under the label micro and it fits fine with observation and evidence. I myself expand it more then many creationists but perhaps they will come around under pressure of evidence and reason.
Rob

It is true about the seeming similarity between us and apes. well commented on since darwin.
Yet I would still say we don't look like them as they are animals in movement and form and we are graceful.
The sameness of dogs and bears is a lond subject and I just base on looks mostly and that it fits into kinds. It might be wrong but it seems reasonable also from the fossil record there seems to be overlap.Again our sameness with apes is from the same blueprint idea and in fact all animals look the same in one way or another. However no one ever mistakes a human for a monkey. And its because toes and fingers are only similiar looked at separately. In total the human body is different. Stance and use is also part of looks.
Rob

The changes after the Ark were so that the creatures obeyed God in filling and multiplying on earth. So if a island was reached that was difficult for others then that creature exploded into all niches. The fossil record shows this on the continents also and only later migrations destroyed the diversity.
The mechanism perhaps was a kind of natural selection however I think the mechanism for speciation has not yet been found and demonstrated although some speciation takes place under stress. I think stress is a small part of speciation for it always seems to me from my observation of the fossil record that speciation is a result of wealth not poverty. Many species are just leisure classes.
Rob

What is well known in Toe circles is just speculation in very small circles of thinkers. Creationist doctrine 101.
The observation of speciation has never been observed in all its glory to produce results that last in the natural world. Some cases of speciation are claimed here and there to have been observed and thats fine. However say on a island where one bird has speciated to fill many niches as occured as not been witnessed. In this complex world it is easily explained that the mechanism I need hasn't been discovered yet. Like blindness hasn't been cured yet.
Rob