Replies

I believe we can all agree that macro evolution is materialism through natural selection.

Um, no. No, we can't.

In fact I've never once seen this proposed or employed as a definition of "macroevolution".

It isn't even coherent. For instance there's no way to operationally define "materialism," since it concerns philosophical views which may or may not be in the mind of the scientist; and which, even if present, may well have no effect whatever (and certainly no predictable or necessary effect) on how that scientist actually does science, e.g. how they employ and test scientific theories and principles.

The most common definition of macroevolution is "evolution above the species level," and therefore microevolution is evolution below the species level. IOW, if new species arise, then that's macroevolution by definition. If biological change occurs, but without breaking the species barrier, then that is microevolution by definition.

Creationists won't accept this definition (because few believe in fixed species, therefor this definition would make them macroevolutionists!) but it is nevertheless the most objective and widely accepted definition.

Thank you for your response. I believe there may be others that may want to post definitions of micro and macro. This perhaps could be an interesting discussion. It is at least a reminder that various terms are used by posters without general agreement to their definitions. Thanks,tk

The term micro was first used by Leavitt in 1909 and macro was first used by Filipchenko in 1925. I do not understand how you equate the terms with creationist when in fact they were not coined by creationist. Your definition of micro and macro is essentially the same as what I stated. The term materialism used in this conversation refers to scientific materialism, first used by Thalis to describe natural events seen in nature without the use of supernatural causes. There is nothing new with these three terms, micro, macro or materialism.Thanks, tk