From: George Murphy (email@example.com)
Date: Sun Mar 16 2003 - 08:12:32 EST
Jim Armstrong wrote:
> I know this is not new turf, but it seems to me that the terms
> microevolution and macroevolution are just a bit of sophistry (as is
> perhaps contrasting "fact" with "assumption"). Those micro- and macro-
> terms and the dividing line between them seem to be artifacts of the
> evolution discussion and not descriptive of some well-defined stay-put
> dividing line in nature. Calling a spade a spade, isn't the real issue
> either the timeline (micro becomes macro with the passage of "enough"
> time) or the special creation of man?
But the micro-macro distinction serves an important purpose for creationists,
IDers &c. It enables them to say that they're not opposed to evolution itself but only
to the macro variety, and thus helps to shield them from the charge of being
I know there's been a lot of debate about this among people a lot more
knowledgeable than I in this area, but it seems to me that Darwin had it right in
focussing on "the origin of _species_." _If_ there are "natural kinds" in biology, the
category of species - defined as an isolated breeding population - can make the best
claim to represent such a kind. & the critical question then is not about a vaguely
defined micro-macro distinction but whether or not one evolutionary mechanism or another
- & natural selection in particular - can give rise to new species.
George L. Murphy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Mar 16 2003 - 08:16:10 EST