I mostly see these terms used by creos in an attempt to create a distinction between one type of evolution ("microevolution") which is easily observable and demonstrable in real time, and another type of evolution ("macroevolution") which, they believe, cannot be demonstrated.
However, I have increasingly seen use of these terms on evolution websites as well, often in the context of studying the evolution/creationism argument, but perhaps not always. I am confused because I had always thought the terms were creo invented and used only for their purposes.
As I understand the terms, it's nothing more than a difference of degree. Evolution is descent with modification. If the changes are small enough, the daughter population is still the same species as the parent population. If the changes are more significant, the daughter population can be a new species. But it's all evolution.
Is there a distinction between "micro" and "macro" evolution that is scientifically significant? Do scientists use the terms in the course of their work, outside of the evolution/creationism debate? If so, what is their significance? If not, have scientists allowed the creos to define the playing field by apparently accepting and adopting their terminology, which does nothing more than draw a distinction that is scientifically irrelevant?
I would like this thread to be limited to a discussion of the definition and usage of these terms, rather than a debate about whether "macroevolution" can be proved. Perhaps, since my question revolves around whether the distinction is scientifically significant, it could go in Is it Science? Either that or Misc Topics.
This message has been edited by subbie, 04-01-2006 08:51 PM
{Added the "bolding" to some of the text. - Adminnemooseus}
This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-03-2006 05:37 AM
™ Version 4.2