I think it's unfortunate that this debate continues even after
Quetzal's superb post #36. His explanation makes it clear that the macro/micro dichotomy is one that creationists exploit far beyond what is actually meant by these two terms.
Personally, I hate the terms 'micro' and 'macro' evolution. I'm not sure who originated the terminology. If it was a biologist trying to make a useful distinction for laymen, his words have been taken completely out of the original context. My own suspicion is that it was a creationist writer trying to backpedal, faced with the observable change in populations that is the very basis of evolution through natural selection. Now we're stuck with this terminology, however misleading it is.
Quetzal made it clear to everyone except Quiz and Sonic that 'micro' and 'macro' aren't two different kinds of evolution. One is supposed to refer to the change in allele frequency in populations, a phenomenon that can be observed in the lab and in the field. The other is used to refer to the large-scale morphological change that is manifest in the fossil record, the result of countless changes in individual populations, through which classifiers have to sytematize the biological record of common ancestry.
Nay-sayers like Sonic make a lot out of the fact that macroevolution doesn't 'happen' like microevolution does. The expectation of seeing macroevolution in the lab is part and parcel of this gross misrepresentation. Sonic is saying, in essence, that we can't observe heat waves with a thermometer, only really hot days. Thus, he asserts that heat waves don't happen. The fact is that observable instances of changes in allele frequency are the basis of the observable large-scale diversity of life on Earth, just like a series of hot days constitute a heat wave.
The dissenters here should point to a magic threshold beyond which a population's allele frequency never changes, since that seems to be the basis of their argument that changes in populations do not result over time in diversity in life forms. In addition, they should indicate what better explanation they have for the amazingly consistent patterns of change throughout the fossil record, since mere changes in allele frequency do not appear adequate to their objective scientific imaginations.
------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall
™ Version 4.2
