Macro and Micro Evolution

This topic seems to come up pretty frequently but I didn't find anywhere that it was being focussed on. Let's see if we can keep it in here.

Messenjah posted here
post in emailsMark responded with
messenJah,
So the only form of evolution that is micro is speciation?An obviously false definition.Mark

Messenjah, my question is:
What then is macro evolution?

Holmes:
He wasn't asking for new speces. So far on this thread I think that both sides agree that new species have arisen and are arising now.Apollyon:
Since all taxa above the species level are simply groupings of the species being examined how is it that if new species can arise they can not be different enough to be grouped into new genera? If the appearance of a new genus was documented then you would agree that "macroevolution" does in fact occur?Why the insistence on this occuring 'in the lab' by the way? Could you justify that stance?[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-16-2003]

Let's not get to distracted by this topic here. There are discussions of this elsewhere. However to make it quick: the term law isn't used much for any new things. E.g., special relaviity isn't a "law" though it replaces Newton's "laws". The term that is used now is "theory" and it means just what "law" did before.The tests do not have to be performed in the lab. Many theories are tested outside of the lab. Even if we take a lab to be anywhere we can perform a current experiment. What do they predice we will see? Do we find that? Even if we don't create the conditions it is still a test of the theories predictions.Now I understand where you confusion arises I think we can leave that one or you may carry it on in a thread more appropriate for it.

You do have a good point, Chiroptera could supply a little backup for what he has to say. I'm sure he will in due time.

You know what I was just astonished to find out this last year!! There is a gliding snake!http://www.flyingsnake.org/(but it's not all that good at it )[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-16-2003]

I would strongly disagree if you are saying flying fish are not good at it. But you use a sentance without not and with either on the end so I can't tell.They are very good at it, at least compared to the snakes and to flying squirrels.

I think(based on videos) the snake is not all that good. The flying fish is.

It means absolutely nothing to me.

Since different people seem to use the term macroevolution in different ways I can't tell if a flying fish would be an example or not.Additionally, I know nothing about the cladistics of flying fish so I don't know how closely related they are to other non-flying fish.Why on earth would you introduce another term "mesoevolution" when we don't need the micro - macro terms in the first place.

This is what the thread should have started with. Excellent.Now are there any arguments with this? Coherent ones?

Brad, when I say I don't understand what you are saying that is ALL I am saying. I have read your last couple of posts (twice!). I simply don't get it. I tried, really I did. I'm sorry that I can't "get it". I will go back to ignoring your posts for awhile. When I've had a rest maybe I will try again. You are, of course, free to ignore mine if you wish? [qs=Brad]MY point was MISSED and this is enough to PROOVE its theoretical reality.[qs] I'm sorry but there is now way that something that is incoherent is proven by the very fact that it is incomprehensible. (If I understand even that sentence. )

bump!Have we ALL agreed on the definitions given above by Quetzal then? There seems to be no further discussion.

LOL, Mr JackI'll be interested in the answer to this question. Maybe like some of the physics of flight or swimming with low resistance there is something we can learn that will be useful.