It seems to me that this "macro" "micro" divide is something that is hard to grasp.
Let's put the Macro-micro divide at the appearance of a new species.
Something that's also hard to grasp is that there's no hard boundary between one species and another, hence this divide is impossible to define.
Much like the old light spectrum and the hard color divide... "Where does the red turn to green?"
It is true that, at one point, we have red and at the other we have green, but the exact turning point is not clear... it is not a single wavelength, it is a broad interval of the spectrum where one can claim that a color is a mix of both red and green.... and it passes through colors we know as yellow and orange.
What Esq has been arguing is that there's no mechanism that would prevent several small wavelength changes to cause a shift in color from red to green.... the color would always be red, right alpha?
I know I'm using an analogy as, as such, you can call "strawman", so let's go back to the evolution thing.
Small genetic adaptations have been observed in several living beings, what's called microevolution. These observed changes have never been enough to bring forth a new species, according to the biologists' classification for that... even within asexual bacteria.
There's also the fossil record showing different animals at different time instances and some of them share a few traits through time.... hinting that they were somehow related. The traits that don't follow from one time instance to the next have been interpreted as evolution at work, discarding what doesn't work in the ever changing environment and getting new features that work better. We see these different animals as a different species.
This is exactly what one would expect if the small changes were to accumulate throughout the generations.
Do bear in mind that a generation is not a fixed amount of time and depends heavily on which species we're analyzing.
Let's put the Macro-micro divide at the appearance of a new species.
Something that's also hard to grasp is that there's no hard boundary between one species and another, hence this divide is impossible to define.
Much like the old light spectrum and the hard color divide... "Where does the red turn to green?"
It is true that, at one point, we have red and at the other we have green, but the exact turning point is not clear... it is not a single wavelength, it is a broad interval of the spectrum where one can claim that a color is a mix of both red and green.... and it passes through colors we know as yellow and orange.
What Esq has been arguing is that there's no mechanism that would prevent several small wavelength changes to cause a shift in color from red to green.... the color would always be red, right alpha?
I know I'm using an analogy as, as such, you can call "strawman", so let's go back to the evolution thing.
Small genetic adaptations have been observed in several living beings, what's called microevolution. These observed changes have never been enough to bring forth a new species, according to the biologists' classification for that... even within asexual bacteria.
There's also the fossil record showing different animals at different time instances and some of them share a few traits through time.... hinting that they were somehow related. The traits that don't follow from one time instance to the next have been interpreted as evolution at work, discarding what doesn't work in the ever changing environment and getting new features that work better. We see these different animals as a different species.
This is exactly what one would expect if the small changes were to accumulate throughout the generations.
Do bear in mind that a generation is not a fixed amount of time and depends heavily on which species we're analyzing.
