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.
I took a biology class in college on human evolution and they distinguished between micro- and macro- evolutions and the terms were in the biology book. They were the first time I had heard them and only heard them from creationists after I heard them in a biology textbook.
I think it is a misconception that they are creo invented.
As I understand the terms, it's nothing more than a difference of degree.
Yep, thats how I see it too. It depends on what scale you talking about. Evolution only happens to populations (the macro scale) but it is a result of things(RM and NS) that happen on the indivdual(micro) scale.
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.
This seems like a misrepresentation of speciation to me. Speciation,
usually (if not always), requires genetic seperation of the daughter population from the parent population. Maybe it was just a simplified description, but it seems to leave out some stuff, I mean, you need more than significant change to get a new species. If not seperation, then you need a lot of time for the significant changes to build up so that the species could no longer reproduce with what it was X centuries ago. But this, in my mind, is not a speciation
event, and you're not going to have some point where the daughter population cannot reproduce with the parent population, although it wouldn't be able to reproduce with the parent population from X centuries ago. Its just when you say the daughter population can be a new species, it sounds incorrect.
Is there a distinction between "micro" and "macro" evolution that is scientifically significant?
Yes but its relative. It is helpful in distinguishing on what level your talking about, what scale you're using.
Do scientists use the terms in the course of their work, outside of the evolution/creationism debate? If so, what is their significance?
Yes, I have personally been taught them in a college course and have seem them in the textbook. Their significance was to set the bar, to establish a scale, to distinguish between the individual level and the population level so other people know what you're talking about.
™ Version 4.2
