Macroevolution and Microevolution

[Anthony Morris]

2 hours ago, Itoero said:

 

 

So the evolution to those sparrows with  different characteristics is micro evolution if you take the introduced house sparrow as starting point but it's macro evolution when you take the dinosaurs as starting point.

 

 

 

If dinosaur to bird is macroevolution because of the starting point then bacteria to man or mushroom are also macroevolution. We already use the word evolution for just this sort of definition already. Using the definition you propose serves no useful purpose.

[Itoero]

1 hour ago, Anthony Morris said:

If dinosaur to bird is macroevolution because of the starting point then bacteria to man or mushroom are also macroevolution. We already use the word evolution for just this sort of definition already. Using the definition you propose serves no useful purpose.

Scientists use it so their must be a purpose. According to your logic people should not make a distinction between micro and macrobiology because they are both biology? And what about micro and macroscopy?

2 hours ago, Anthony Morris said:

then bacteria to man or mushroom are also macroevolution

This might be but this evolutionary process is not studied like  dinosaur-bird so there is no reason to call it macroevolution.

[Anthony Morris]

On ‎10‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 3:40 PM, Itoero said:

Scientists use it so their must be a purpose. According to your logic people should not make a distinction between micro and macrobiology because they are both biology? And what about micro and macroscopy?

This might be but this evolutionary process is not studied like  dinosaur-bird so there is no reason to call it macroevolution.

Scientists are just as prone to laziness as the rest of us. They will use shortcuts when speaking or writing just like the rest of us do. The word "ain't" is technically a word. It is even found in most modern dictionaries. It is however sloppy speech. Microevolution and macroevolution are similarly sloppy. One is allowed to use them just as one is allowed to use "ain't" if they are okay with sloppiness. 

[CharonY]

That is not the reason at all. Scientists use words because they are useful. We use species as a concept because it is useful, not because nature has set hard delineations that define this concept. We use different levels of taxonomy for the same reason. Some researchers look at changes. Some researchers work on different scales of evolution (e.g. within and between populations) and in order to clarify things they may use different terms. 

[Itoero]

15 hours ago, Anthony Morris said:

Microevolution and macroevolution are similarly sloppy. One is allowed to use them just as one is allowed to use "ain't" if they are okay with sloppiness. 

They are words to define an amount of evidence concerning evolution,  to categorize the evidence, what's sloppy about that?

[Anthony Morris]

15 hours ago, Itoero said:

They are words to define an amount of evidence concerning evolution,  to categorize the evidence, what's sloppy about that?

"Amount." What sort of amount? Measured how? How does one quantize them? There are no units for any sort of evolution really. 

Microevolution and macroevolution are no different than "missing link" or "living fossil" and shouldn't really be used because they mislead people, especially lay-people. 

I understand the appeal of such easy terms. The lay-public already uses them. It seems easier to get the public to understand and accept evolution and its theories by explaining them through these words but it really just reinforces their misconceptions. Better to explain the falsity of these terms for accuracy. Those who want to learn will, those who do not will continue to use the terms regardless. 

[Itoero]

4 hours ago, Anthony Morris said:

I understand the appeal of such easy terms. The lay-public already uses them. It seems easier to get the public to understand and accept evolution and its theories by explaining them through these words but it really just reinforces their misconceptions. Better to explain the falsity of these terms for accuracy. Those who want to learn will, those who do not will continue to use the terms regardless. 

I get why you think like that, micro and macro evolution can cause confusion, those terms often lose their real meaning in the general public(the same with 'evolution') ...but what does that matter? Does science-language need to become more 'simple' so people understand it?  Those are not false terms, scientists make a distinction between micro en macroevolution to make references or they use those terms when it's clear something is micro or macroevolution....the same for macro and microbiology.

Edited October 26, 2017 by Itoero

[Anthony Morris]

6 hours ago, Itoero said:

I get why you think like that, micro and macro evolution can cause confusion, those terms often lose their real meaning in the general public(the same with 'evolution') ...but what does that matter? Does science-language need to become more 'simple' so people understand it?  Those are not false terms, scientists make a distinction between micro en macroevolution to make references or they use those terms when it's clear something is micro or macroevolution....the same for macro and microbiology.

The more important matter is how you quantize the terms. How exactly does one quantize any evolutionary event? Mutations run a gamut of types from single-point mutations to whole duplications and inversions to mention just three. Evolutionary events also include each and every selection event including each birth and death. Even speciation events are not all the same: some occur slowly over many generations while others are quite rapid and happen within one or two generations. The separations between the two words "appears" to be only opinion and has no clear basis in reality. 

 

By and large macroevolution is suggested to be composed of microevolution occurring in two separate populations. I confess I see no utility to this kind of term. The fact that I don't see it myself does not mean there is nothing there but I have yet to see anything to convince me there is a scientific use. Scientific language should always strive for precision. 

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, Anthony Morris said:

I confess I see no utility to this kind of term.

You should read some papers of researchers working on large-scale evolution (Kutschera comes to mind). With the dominance of molecular data in evolutionary sciences there seems to be a decline in its use (it was more common in the 90s and before from what I recall). But again, it has a specific place and one only needs to check their use in lit. The presented view here, is a tad too limited.