What is the cut-off between macro and micro-evolution?

[phk]

What is the cut-off between macro and micro-evolution?

[Blue Rectangle]

A region called "meso-evolution"?

[MODU]

In spimple terms, Micro-evolution deals with small changes within the spicies, while Macro-evolution deals with large changes across the various spicies.  So, watching a moth change colors from white to black, but while staying genetically the same insect, is an example of Micro-evolution.  A fish, developing lungs so it can breath air (and eventually move from the ocean to land) is a form of Macro-evolution.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It's just creationist terminolgy, since they can't argue that evolution is false, they try to claim that it doesn't do everything. They talk about Irreducible complexity.

Well, they keep people like those on this website busy refuting all their garbage.
http://www.talkorigins.org/

[MODU]

It's just creationist terminolgy, .....

From your own link:

The terms macroevolution and microevolution were first coined in 1927 by the Russian entomologist Iurii Filipchenko (or Philipchenko, depending on the transliteration), in his German-language work Variabilität und Variation, which was the first attempt to reconcile Mendelian genetics and evolution. Filipchenko was an evolutionist, but as he wrote during the period when Mendelism seemed to have made Darwinism redundant, the so-called "eclipse of Darwinism" (Bowler 1983), he was not a Darwinian, but an orthogeneticist. Moreover Russian biologists of the period had a history of rejecting Darwin's Malthusian mechanism of evolution by competition.

You are saying that Iurii was a creationist?  Sounds like you are a "Evolution apologist."  hahaha . . . sorry, had to beat you to it.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It's just creationist terminolgy, .....

From your own link:

The terms macroevolution and microevolution were first coined in 1927 by the Russian entomologist Iurii Filipchenko (or Philipchenko, depending on the transliteration), in his German-language work Variabilität und Variation, which was the first attempt to reconcile Mendelian genetics and evolution. Filipchenko was an evolutionist, but as he wrote during the period when Mendelism seemed to have made Darwinism redundant, the so-called "eclipse of Darwinism" (Bowler 1983), he was not a Darwinian, but an orthogeneticist. Moreover Russian biologists of the period had a history of rejecting Darwin's Malthusian mechanism of evolution by competition.

You are saying that Iurii was a creationist?  Sounds like you are a "Evolution apologist."  hahaha . . . sorry, had to beat you to it.

Who cares? There wasn't so much evidence for evolution initially. Have you ever heard of DNA? It was discovered in 1953. I could care less about arguments over evolution from before 1953.

[MODU]

Who cares? There wasn't so much evidence for evolution initially. Have you ever heard of DNA? It was discovered in 1953. I could care less about arguments over evolution from before 1953.

As you wish.  You only hurt yourself.

[phk]

In spimple terms, Micro-evolution deals with small changes within the spicies, while Macro-evolution deals with large changes across the various spicies.  So, watching a moth change colors from white to black, but while staying genetically the same insect, is an example of Micro-evolution.  A fish, developing lungs so it can breath air (and eventually move from the ocean to land) is a form of Macro-evolution.

No in exact scientific terms, how do you know that a compendium of micro changes are not classified as a macro change?

It seems that this is purely qualitative.

[CheeseWhiz]

You see, I don’t believe in macroevolution; it just seems that the “in-between” stage of a fish and whatever land animal it’s evolving into wouldn’t be able to defend itself very well against predators, so it gets eaten and thus ends our evolutionary chain   If someone would like to explain this to me, I’d be more than happy to know what the evolution theory’s rationalization is for this.

But microevolution does happen, and I don’t count that as evolution, not macroevolution anyway.  Okay, if a short-haired horse got moved up to the mountains by some guy, then their body would grow thicker, longer hair in order to survive.