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

RAZD,I agree with you that the difference between 'micro' and 'macro' evolution is one that is much more significant to creationists than to those of us who affirm the theory of evolution by natural selection. However, let's not overstate the case. Your OP seemed to suggest that an organism could reproduce into a vastly different organism given the right mutations. Did you mean that the right series of mutations over a succession of generations could lead to significant morphological change, or are you trying to make a sort of "hopeful monster" argument? It's not clear from your wording.Similarly, this last post would appear to suggest that mice are somehow ancestral to elephants. I think I see what you're truly saying: if genetic links can be found between species (like wolves and dogs) that are acknowledged to be closely related, aren't we correct in inferring that the same sorts of genetic links point to a less recent (but still valid) common ancestry between, say, mice and elephants?In the past, creationists have said to me that DNA evidence can establish paternity of a human child, since obviously humans give birth to other humans. However, that same evidence can't be used to establish common ancestry between apes and humans, since creationism denies that they share a common ancestor. Their insistence that organisms give birth to 'like' organisms is not the issue: Darwinism merely maintains that the offspring are less and less 'like' their ancestors with every subsequent generation. In addition, factors such as geographical isolation can produce a subpopulation different enough from the ancestral one that we may consider the new population a separate species.I agree with you that genetic data support the assertion that this mechanism is responsible for biological diversity on much higher than the directly-observable 'micro' level. I'd be interested to see what the creationists have to say about the imagined 'barrier' to change above the micro level, since the genes seem to deny this rather forcefully.regards,
Esteban Hambre