Number one, the micro- macro- thingy is a creationist creation; it does not appear in any of the books on evolution I have, and I'd never run across it before beginning to debate creationists on these threads. Secondly, I conceded the point on human tails. I specifically remember telling you that all we had to go on was that photograph of the kid with the tail, we did not have any additional information on the tail structure. And as for the speciation definition, as far as I can tell there are several competing definitions of speciation, which the creationists gleefully glom onto so they can change their definitions of macro- and micro-evolution to fit their particular arguments. I've typically stuck with the "unable to mate with any other species" definition.
I will be the first to admit I'm an amateur when it comes to biology, but I do have to point out that I make an effort to track down the information I need and seldom post without having something (a link, a reference, something) to back up my contentions. Mr. tallhappy, on the other hand, has been horribly unforthcoming with any actual information, evidently relegating himself to sitting on the sidelines carping.
Not at all. Creationists like to take it and put their own spin on it but the concept was born with evolutionary biologists and the terms were coined by evolutionary biologists. Filipchenko (Dobzhansky's mentor) originated the term and called for theories to explain the distinction between micro- and macro-evolutionary phenomena, in particular the difference between inter-and intra-species level evolution. Dobzhansky popularized the term and called the distinction one of scaling. The debate, framed by evolutionists then, still continues today, with famous evolutionists like Wallace, Simpson, Gould, and Stanley on the strong distinction side of the issue. Note that speciation patterns like punctuated equilibrium, cladogenesis, and punctuated anagenesis are all macro-evoutionary phenomena.
I've pointed this business out a number of times. Your continued adherence to the falsehood that these terms are creationist inventions plays into tallhappy's point that what goes on here is not science but, well, something else.
Secondly, I conceded the point on human tails.
The vestigial tail nonsense had come up over a year ago and I went into a long explanation then, but just recently you posted another picture without refuting it as anything vestigial. A concession, apparently, is meaningless.
And as for the speciation definition, as far as I can tell there are several competing definitions of speciation, which the creationists gleefully glom onto so they can change their definitions of macro- and micro-evolution to fit their particular arguments. I've typically stuck with the "unable to mate with any other species" definition.
That's loosely the biological species definition and I agree with that. I'm specifically referring to the evolution of species definition at the top of your resource thread. A definition such as that needs to be broader or not there at all. I've pointed this out before, I've pointed it out to "physicist", but I have seen no changes. I don't care enough to pursue it, but don't pretend that you always make an effort to track down the proper information.
Mr. tallhappy, on the other hand, has been horribly unforthcoming with any actual information, evidently relegating himself to sitting on the sidelines carping.
I don't support tallhappy's approach at all. He reminded me of some of the experience I had earlier on these threads.
You know Junior, your famous list-o-links as well as your "Ultimate Resource" has plenty of articles on macro-evolution. I am really surprised that you make that claim. In addition, I posted to you why macro-evolution is a valid distinction and exactly where the line is drawn between micro-and macro-evolution. You can see it again in my reposting to Vade in post#1175.