Hypermacroevolution? Hypermicroevolution

I've noticed a repeating theme from many ToEers, implying that YECers who believe in a Noah's Ark and Universal flood are necessitating hypermacroevolution, (a rate of evolution beyond that which is claimed by the ToE itself) which is found to be ironic since the same YECers would deny the possibility of macro-evolution in the first place...I would like to point out that what would actually be required under a flood/ark framework is hypermicroevolution - a distinction which is vital to recognize.Why is this distinction important? Because the two concepts are diametrically opposed.Macroevolution suggests increase in complexity..such as the derivation of multicellularity from unicellularity..Microevolution, on the other hand, simply refers to the diversification of a population due to variation of the genetic material (caused by recombination, genetic drift, chromosomal translocations, possibly (although I have my doubts) mutations)...While Macroevolution claims the greatest potential for change, 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..Genetic diversification of a population has been observed and studied extensively through the pratice of artificial selection and breeding. The amount of diversification achieved, for example, in the canis genus or further up the canine family, is remarkable yet similarity of body plan is evident.The variation seen among the canis lupus familiaris (domestic dog) due to domestic breeding, while not perfectly analagous to the level of variation that would mark the diversification of the flood "kind" to the descendant species today, is nonetheless indicative of both the degree of variation inherent in higher order species (an ancestral or taxonomically higher animal) and the rapidity with which such variation can occur.I mentioned that the variation seen within the dog species is not perfectly analagous to required flood scenario because the "kinds" that were on the ark, would likely be placed around, if not right at, the family level. Thus the descent from the kinds represents more variation and diversification than that currently seen in domestic breeding programs...
This notwithstanding, studying the effects of artificial selection is useful for the aforementioned applications..So in sum, diversification (that is the potential diversification) of each Ark "kind" is supported by evidence from breeding - even if current breeding programs have only so far dealt with the species level.What about timeframe? The diversification caused by artificial selection is seen to occur very rapidly - within the timeframe of a few generations. Certainly, the level of diversification required under the Flood "kind" scenario is greater than that of the species level, and therefore would require greater time. Again, the evidence from breeding suggests that such diversification from the "kind" to the species we see today, is very possible within a 5k - 6k timeframe...

I've got a little time so I'll try to get to all the questions posed in my absence..bear with me please. Recombination, genetic drift, and chromosomal translocations, all simply involve the rearrangement of the existing genome - nothing new is introduced. Mutations may indeed add complexity, but i'm dubious on that point...The point being that diverisification of a species (by any of the above mechanisms, excepting maybe mutations) is by defintition a sorting of the genetic material - that is a loss not a gain. To clarify, I am refering to the amount of information present in a population, since of course, all individuals of a population possess practically the same level of information, manifested in different alleles.

I use the terms micro and macro evolution to refer to the direction of evolution.Upward evolution refers to the overall increase of complexity proposed as the mechanism for the descent of all modern organisms from an original unicellular organism.By downward evolution I mean the generational variation of an existing population's genome (unaffected, if it could be supposed, by additions of information as caused by polyploidy, inserts, ecc)Upward evolution (macro) may require millions of years of mutations to provide discernible changeDownward evolution (micro) has been evidenced to occur (artificial selection) significantly in a short time period (hundreds of years or less)Note that I did not definitively define "kind"I can not say for certain that "kind" correlates to "family". It may be higher or lower, depending on the kind. Fitting kind into current taxonomic classifications may not be possible. Taxonomy is an arbitrary classification, it should be noted.Placing the "kind" within current taxonomy is not relevant to this post, in any regard. The point is that, wherever the kind fits on the taxonomic scheme, the Ark "kind" would have merely had to undergo a proccess that has been observed to occur today in a short period of time..

In terms of a population, it would be something like the number of genes common to that species * the number of alleles of each common gene...Edited by mjfloresta, : edited to include quote

The hundreds of years or so was in reference to artificial selection especially refering to dog breeding. It's not a scant timescale - it's an observed one. Descent from the higher level "kind" would logically require more time than the hundreds of years required for the variation seen in the dog breed. No argument there. The point is, timescale aside, tremendous variation is clearly inherent in the dog population - no addition to the gene pool required - just normal recombination, and sorting.

Yes, I would propose that the dog, elephant, horse, and cat each had their own "kind".

Darwin observed the most minute variation (finch beak sizes) and extrapolated that into the Grand old ToE;I've proposed a mechanism of variety (microevolution) which is confirmed by observation (breeding, artificial selection). There is a genetic basis for variation of a population. We've observed it in dog breeding and natural speciation events between which the divergent populations no longer choose to breed..Was Darwin being unscientific when he extrapolated his ToE from the minute (in the grand evolutionary tree sense) variations he observed in the finches?

I'm not sure why people are caught up on this "selective breeding" model thing..
I'm not advocating that Noah or anyone else engaged in a massive selective breeding program at all;What I've said, is that there is a mechanism which would've allowed for the diversification of the kinds into the species we see today. This says nothing about a selective breeding program. The necessary mechanism is there, that's the point. Whether the selection was natural or artificial is irelevant to the point.

minute in what sense? genetically? or morphologically? because if genetically, i've looked but I can't find any studies that compare the two breeds genomes...Morphologically, the two breeds display considerable differences (not to mention temperament and traits), certainly more than Darwin's finches which started it all... Nor would you expect to.. It is oft-claimed that Creationists misrepresent ToE by saying that man descended from the ape - when in fact ToE claims that both are descended from a common ancestor - both are "descendants" on the tree of life; Same thing here, under this paradigm, domestic cats and lions are both "tips" of a branch - neither one is ancestral to the other nor would you expect to be able to derive one from the other.. Once again, breeding has shown this to be untrue; variations do in fact appear as the result of extremely few generations - i'd have to consult a dog breeder to tell you how few, but certainly within a short period of time..

Exactly

Once again I'm confused as to your sources. How do you know the difference between a lion and housecat is "much greater" than that between a poodle and Dalmatian? Genetics? Morphology? And if you are right, then I grant you that more generations would be required. But we've already established that intra-special variation (such as seen between dog breeds) does not require many generations at all..Would common ancestor to lion or common ancestor to house-cat (a descent from perhaps the family level to the species level) require more generations? sure., of course..
But the implication is that such variation could occur in as few as hundreds of generations or less... If you're going to use analogies, I request that they accurately represent what I have said.
I said nothing about the "descent from kind to species" requiring the same amount of time as the "descent of dog breeds among the dog species"...That is your claim..On the contrary, I have repeatedly stated that greater variation would logically require more generations...

That's what I suspect occured as well...

So breeding is the basis for your classification system? Just Curious... It's not irrelevant; it's establishing a timeframe.. This one I'm not answering after this since I've been abundantly clear.
I've explicitly stated that greater variation would necessarily require greater lengths of time. There's nothing inherent in my statements that would contradict the clarity of what I've said.. Fixed amount of time - check; Generations have more-or-less fixed rate for a given species - I'll give you a guarded check on that one, since as Faith has stated, we have very limited naturalistic data since it's a relatively new phenomenon; There are a specific number of generations for the scenario to occur - check; So what's the problem?

It is; I can't believe I have to convince an evolutionist of the actuality of speciation events; both paradigms believe in speciation - ToE traces the common ancestor farther back than Creationism does..

Keeping in mind that I haven't studies every species, genus, and family, on earth, I will answer your questions as soon as I can...