"Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism?

A {macro vs micro} genetic question for creationists:IF the concept of "kinds" is correct, THEN there must be mechanism(s) in the DNA that allows "micro"evolution but prevents "macro"evolution?At the level of DNA there is no real difference in all levels of organisms other than the progression of the different pairs of the appropriate (4) amino acids (CTAG).Random mutations can cause any pair to be changed to another, thus at the molecular level it is entirely possible to change one {"macro" organism} into another {"macro" organism} with the correct series of mutations of exactly the same kind as are known to occur in "micro"evolution.The whole system was supposedly set up during those original 6 days, so there must be a mechanism in place that prevents "macro"evolution ... what is the built-in biological mechanism that prevents this from happening? Where is it located? Why hasn't it been found?

Sorry, you failed to address the question.The question is what is the mechanism that distinguishes between "micro" and "macro" at the molecular level.All you have given is another of your arguments from incredulity with no factual basis.Comparison of DNA between two closely related species, like dogs and wolves, shows similar differences in the DNA as comparison between to vastly diffeent species, like elephants and mice.What is the mechanism that says wolf to dog can happen, but mouse to elephant can't?KEY WORD: MECHANISM.enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Thanks for the critique. No I am not suggesting that mice are ancestral to elephants, but that the differences in DNA between mice and elephants is not a different mechanism than the differences in DNA between wolves and dogs.In essence you could take the DNA from one animal and rearrange it into the pattern of another animal within a {fertilized egg \ embrio} and the {full term result} would be the second animal. Note that recently a researcher took a specific segment of DNA from a fish and replaced the same segment in a mouse embrio and the DNA functioned appropriately -- for the mouse.For "Macro"evolution to be 'prohibited' there must be some mechanism that stops the genetic change at one level while allowing it at a lower level.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

no creationists want to try?the genetic difference between "micro" and "macro" evolution is???

looks like it is one of those "we believe there is a limit because if there wasn't a limit then we coudn't believe that it couldn't happen which happens to be what we believe ... I think" kind of arguments.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

YE is as dead an intellectually viable concept as the geocentric earth was; in fact the information refuting YE is more accessible than that refuting the central earth system.The next ideological brick to fall will be the false distinction between "macro" and "micro" as the evidence mounts that there is no distinction at either the genetic or the full-scale biological level.I don't think this will bring "christianity" to its (collective) knees as the teachings of christ are a viable ideology for a faith. What there will be is more of a distinction between the OT and the NT and reliance on jesus as a messenger of change and rebirth.What it may do is allow christians to open to science in a way that has not always been possible.Personally I don't think god plays favorites.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

of the usual arguments. your zabcdefg example is right on.

Nice concept, and about the only thing I can see that would hold water, albeit badly. Of course not all creationist arguments need to hold water to have a following (as has been amply demonstrated).Testable too -- all one needs to do is find a section of DNA that is immune to mutation.heh.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

different organisms have different numbers of chromosomes, all made from the same basic DNA blocks ... how many chromosomes did LUCA have? 1? It seems logical to me.Perhaps a model for deep evolution would involve chromosome development the same way it looks at mutations?Certainly {biology \ evolution \ genetics} needs to show how new chromosomes evolve?Perhaps this is the {macro \ micro} divide?{{edited to change "gene" to "chromosome"}}This message has been edited by RAZD, 07-05-2004 07:37 PM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

um, don't think I was. I usually try to delineate those differences. I may have seemed careless in msg #16 but did mean christians there as an all inclusive: the preponderance of christians that have no problems with old earth and "macro" evolution obviously demonstrate my point that faith will survive when those facts are accepted. I do try to use "biblical literalist" or similar to distinguish creationist types too.If I do overstep, apologies tendered.

oops - I meant chromosomes, I'll have to edit it.can {seperation \ duplication-modification \ addition \ deletion} of chromosomes be used to track "macro" levels of evolution the way mutations within gene sequences is used?can one develop a chromosome family tree?

an unscrupulous demon on my shoulder has whispered similar suggestions ... but she still seems a little too "made up" for me

or do lumberjacks make up the chorus?{"I'm a lumberjack and I'm okay ..."}what about computer generated? create a program to evolve new arguments ...ahahahahahahaaaaa

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

so that makes us all one kind?don't think that helps the creationists ...

sweet. I knew there was a different number 42 (2x21) human and 46? (2x23) chimp?also different number between horse and donkey is given as reason for the sterility of the mule.