On that evidence alone I could presume that there are boundries,
otherwise it would be just as easy to make a moth out of our fly as it
would be to make just another variety if fly!
>>
That might be because you are not looking far enough away. You are discussing time frames of hundreds or at most thousands of years versus hundreds of thousand to millions of years.
<<
I think what I am trying to say is that there is genetic information in a
creature that has room for certain variation, like a little dog to a
massive beast of a dog, but beyond that, you need new information.
>>
Do you ? All the information necessary is encoded in the genes. No new information is needed.
<<
I have no idea if random mutation can create more information or not, so I won't comment.
>>
The question is irrelevant, since you presume that there is more information created without actually addressing if this is indeed the case.
If you want to see micro evolution, you can recreate it in a lab,
if you can't recreate it, it's probably macro! Thats my definition of the
difference, I just made up, I like it.>>
Of course laboratory experiments are far from the only data we have to support evolution. The distinction of macro versus micro is an artificial one.
Regards
Pim