For Creationists.

[Esquilax]

Cheech, the mechanism limiting micro from becoming macro is the genetic code.

No no, we're 'on need more than that. Because, see, we know that micro steps are possible from the genetic code, and a macro step is just a bunch of micro steps considered in sequence. So you're factually wrong when you point to the genetic code as though that's going to limit it; based on everything we can observe, it won't.

Which, of course, doesn't alter the fact that you still haven't given us a definition of "kind," which is a big part of your definition of "macro" evolution. Do you just not know what a kind is? If you do, don't you think it's a little unfair to be getting into a discussion while keeping the meaning of a key phrase from the other side?

Just like your computer.
The pre-existing code allows different programs (genetic variations) to run.
It doesn't allow Mac programs to run on Bill Gates' stuff, which is why the only crockaduck you will find
is an illustration in logic.

This is the problem with arguing from analogy; not only, as Rhythm so rightly pointed out, is the analogy flawed in that everything you said can't happen actually can, but the analogy doesn't even match the situation you're using it to describe, since computer programs don't usually reproduce with inherent variation, and are designed, meaning you're begging the question too. But even if it matched perfectly, the analogy isn't a representation of the state of reality; at best all you'd have is a scenario which mirrors what you think about the genetic code, not what actually is.

Also, please tell me you were joking about the crocoduck. Please tell me you don't actually think that's an accurate representation of evolutionary theory.