My understanding is that "Micro-Evolution" involves adaptations for survival within a species (such as the changes of beak size and shape -- in the Galapagos Finch);
while "Macro-Evolution" refers to the theory that one species might evolve into a totally different species (like a dog becoming a bear, or a lizard turning into an alligator).
That is, as I understand it, the biologists use of the terms. However, the dividing line is lower than your example might suggest. The biologists split between micro and macro is where a speciation occurs. So if the finches accummulate enough differences to stop interbreeding from occuring then that is a case of macro-evolution (even if we can't otherwise tell the difference between the two populations).
With this definition, of course, we have current examples of macro evolution.
The creationist have moved the bar up above the species level. But just where they have moved it too is a bit fuzzy. About family it appears. But then not all the time since they can't have humans grouped with anything else.
Of course, the higher you go the less and less likly it is we will see a "macro" evolutionary event in current times. New genera we have seen. However, once you are up high enough it becomes easier to see the steps of a macro evolutionary change occuring in the fossil record where we are very, very, very unlikely to see a simple speciation event. That is why we have inter class macro evolutionary changes tracked in the fossil record.
A question for anyone: Do we have fossil traces of inter family events? That would connect the two ends; one from fossils and the higher levels and one from current findings at the level of species and genus.
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 08-10-2004 09:46 PM
™ Version 4.2
