[mike182d]

“We like to use a Christmas tree analogy,” said Carroll. “These systems already have all the structural details in place, like the structure of a Christmas tree. And all evolution has to do is to alter these regulatory elements mutationally to bring out a pattern — like hanging ornaments on the tree.”

I'm confused. Is this micro- or macro-evolution? Given this analogy, it seems the former is the case.

[munchtipq]

This whole micro/macro thing is getting dangerous. Evolution is evolution. There is only one process. The micro/macro distinction doesn't have to do with the process, but rather with the results. People are getting it right for the most part at the moment, but I'm starting to get a flavor every once in a while that some people consider these different processes. I know it's easier to say "macro-evolution" instead of saying "evolutionary changes that result in the creation of a new species", but we should stay vigilant that everyone understands what people mean when they use these terms.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Is this micro- or macro-evolution? Given this analogy, it seems the former is the case."

There is no difference. "Macro/micro" used as a modifier to evolution is strictly creationist vocabulary. There is only evolution.

[Junior]

Is this micro- or macro-evolution? Given this analogy, it seems the former is the case.

What's the difference? What mechanism prevents "micro" from shading into "macro?"

[RobRoy]

It's micro.