Question....(What is difference between micro and macro evolution?

I've only been an Evolutionist for about two years, so I don't want to sound stupid asking this. Could somebody give me a good definition of Micro, and Macro evolution? I've heard a few creationists say that Macro-Evolution is provable, while Micro-Evolution is not.------------------
"The only thing necessary for the Triumph of Evil is for Good Men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke

Micro - Small evolution not above species,eg. Red carrot becomes purple carrot. (there's more to it than this I'm sure)Macro - Change in species, - The 'new' species let's say human, will not be able to reproduce with the previous transitional species or 'ape man'.

Creationists seem to say that micro evolution is "provable" while macro is not.The words aren't, as I understand it used all that much by real biologists. However, micro is considered to be evolutionary changes below the level of a species while macro is speciation.Since there are only species and convenient groupings of them as higher taxa speciations can eventually produce other taxonomic changes.Creationists have a variety of definitions for what is and isn't micro and macro. They used to, as I understand, say speciation didn't happen. Some still do so they would say that speciation is macro and can't happen. However, since this is observable most have now changed their minds. Some seem to say macro comes in if new genera appear others only if it is at the family level and others a mix between those. You need to ask to get clear what is meant.Another way to view the creationist position might be that there are, somewhere, barriers of some kind between different groups of organisms. These are considered to be uncrossable. No such barrier has ever been demonstrated. We have fossil records of crossing at rather high level taxa.A good definition of macro evolution is just a lot of micro evolution.It is analogous to mixing paint. Let's start with yellow. You add a bit of blue. What color do you have? --- yellow but maybe if you look closly under the right light it is a different shade. Add more blue, you have a darker, cooler kind of yellow, add more, add more but do it a very little bit at a time. Eventually what do you have -- green! When did it cross the barrier? When did it "turn" green? If you're steps are small enough you will have a tough time saying where the line is. If you step back and look at, say, 100 different mixes you will clearly see yellow at one end and green at the other. In between some will clearly be still yellow and some obviously green. In the very middle will be greenish-yellow and yellowish-green.In a similar way we have "mammal-like" reptiles. They are a bit of this and a bit of that. As we get more specimens we will probably have (or already have) bird-like dinosaurs too. Are the former retiles or mammels? They were neither and they were both. The distinction is somewhat arbitrary just like our paint colors. They were each individual species. Which "bucket" we put them in is a matter of convenience. If the pelycosaurs were still around they would be in an order or class or family of their own with a regular sort of English name. But they aren't, we don't and they are "mammal like" instead.

These are creationist terms. They use them to say that "microevolution" can happen, but not "macroevolution".I've never seen a creationist who offered up a definition for these terms, however, who didn't weasel out of it later without redefining it. Mike just tried: lets see if he fares better.

quote:

---

Macro - Change in species, - The 'new' species let's say human, will not be able to reproduce with the previous transitional species or 'ape man'.

---

So, your example is based on the ability to interbreed. So be it.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Micro and Macro are sort of like saying "near" and "far". When a person is far away and they start walking towards you, at what distinct point are they "near" you? This is the problem with using ill defined terms. At most, they are qualitative but are never quantifiable. The second problem is that macro-evolution, as defined by creationists, is such a drastic jump in morphology that it should take a long time to occur. The fact we haven't seen macro is a testament to some of the gradualism inherent in the theory.If I were to sit on a corner and look at a skyscraper I could say that it is built by aliens because no human could build it. Someone would pipe up and say "but of course humans can build one." I would say, I have only seen humans build small houses, nothing this large. Tell ya what, if you can build a skyscraper in front of me, I will believe that skyscrapers were built by humans, but you only have 5 minutes to do it." This is the scenario that creationists place on macroevolution. If it hasn't been seen in the last 200 years, it can't happen. Pretty lame, but that is the argument in a nutshell. Anyway, happy posting.

It's like the difference between Micro-travel and Macro-travel.Micro-travel is when you go to the store. Macro-travel is when you go to another city.Can the mechanism of "walking" account for micro-travel? Easily. Can the same mechanism account for macro-travel? Of course, it just takes longer.So is there a difference between macro-evo and micro-evo? What do you think?

Why is this forum cursed with moderators who get grumpy when they have to repeatedly fix inadequate thread titles?------------------

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Administrator

-----
Edit - Note from Adminnemoooseus - I hadn't even seen this message, when I posted 9, below.[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-16-2003]

So, like Macro-Evolution is going literally from the Thecodont to the dinosaurs?------------------
"The only thing necessary for the Triumph of Evil is for Good Men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke

PEOPLE - LET'S PUT TITLES THAT MEAN SOMETHING, ON YOUR NEW TOPICS!!!I'll get around to modifying this topics title, somewhere along the line.AdminnemooseusOK - Admin beat me to it [This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-16-2003]

I'd say yes - the big changes!I have tried to define these as I have heard them from evolutionists at this site. It would be a speciation, (according to the regulars)like a common ancestor (ape chap) (no evidence of his existence) turning into a yellowy blue to a more green like Ned said i.e. an evvolutionists example ; Homo apeman - homo sapien.[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 12-16-2003]

Sorry about that, the creationist I talk to says that Micro-Evolution is provable, and Macro is not, blah blah blah...------------------
"The only thing necessary for the Triumph of Evil is for Good Men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke

Yea, probably. The problem is that you can't be sure since creationists do NOT what to be pined down on a clear definition. If they are and you show evidence for it where would they be?

Well, just keep asking him what the difference is. When you get right down to it there's no reasonable place to draw the line.

Sorry about that, won't happen again.------------------
"The only thing necessary for the Triumph of Evil is for Good Men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke

Micro-evolution: evolution for which the evidence is so overwhelming that even the ICR can't deny it.Macro-evolution: evolution which is only proven beyond reasonable doubt, not beyond unreasonable doubt.