When does microevolution turn into macroevolution?

I was reading again today:
The Structure of Evolutionary Theory
and it just so happens I noticed exactly how Gould intends the term "macroevolution" to be used. He uses it particularly in reference to his own idea of "isomorphic logic" expecting that linguistic form can not suberate it. The prefix "iso" is associated with the use of isotropic variation at his study on the relatio of De Vries and Darwin but Gould has a far reaching plan for extrapolation from life spans we can recognize in our every days.Indeed he attempts a practical evolutionary logic construction the likes of HootMan would rather see encrypted but indeed does make the difference between 'macro' and 'micro' one of among or between "species" but he as a peculiar view of Linnaes' plants, no matter the sex, as falling under a GENUS categorically that was reductionistically developed making higher categories artifical human constructs while he wonders if a better study could be made of the genetic holism of Goldschmidt and the ossilation theory of Bateson through which his own isomorphism is supposed to be one-to-one and onto but on a 'whole nother level', not a simple constraint.Since he agreed to use the schema within Dobshansky's recognition of a need to be "in vouge" with current notions of causality, even if I was to argue that there IS NO isomorphism logically, (I do not think so but if there was then there WOULD be the spectrum of Jar, (this gets more complicated as he recognizes only Goldschmidt's chemically alterable phenocopies and not systemic mutations made into possible molecular facts of Russell as per Woodger statements)), "macro" evolution will continue to dog attempts to pin it down to the lower registers of humanly voiced speech since the history Gould recounted used the words "parental" and "form" as well constiutively, while he has come out against Creationism, unlike me, in a somewhat biased American way.Creationism has been responsible for plausibly recognizing Kant's difference of immediate and mediate propositions but because the serialization has not been compared genetically and no one has made the comparison Gould suggested historically would be profitable and logicians after Russell have not used propositional functions to the point where the language seperations could shape via relations some incomplete symbol between the two (macro and micro) inhibitions continue to merge the confusions such that neither does the term "meso" evolution work with a position struck nontheless in vogue.Whatever the form of the difference is, it will be understood better when the role space plays with subspecies in "biological time" has been translated into practice. I am suspicious that Gould's use of "core Darwinian logic" can survive this new century of increased genetic scrutiny.It may indeed become a case that discussion of "macro evolution" will proceed further under simple presentations of various dissections as you suggested it might look like but it will be a waste of both creationist time and energy and of me not becoming a copy cat evolutionist of our days if the geographic isolation not superfluid be not looked into.If biologists refuse to stay working on the black line below, it is not my fault.
Click for full size image

quote:

---

OK. Biological evolution is an indisputable scientific fact. However, the mechanics and processes of biological evolution are not yet fully understood or agreed upon, which by no means disqualifies biological evolution itself as a scientific fact.

---

It may be possible that the Tennis Match can appear LOVE-LOVE. I would need others to see things my way however.If creos decide that "Macro"evolution is the first non-observable divergence then it is obvious that a new subset of creationists could arise who insist on disjunctions orthogenetically but if creationists prefer to allow the history before Jesus and the historicims beyond Darwin to remain split (as seems a better "foul" line) a letted ball can continue to go both ways if one tries to refine Dobshanky's middle term "meso" evolution. This would require however that technological/culture evolution and Lamarkianism be unbraided rathe then upbrained and braided as it continues to be.If this was to happen the mechanics and processes of "biological evolution"(Hoot) may indeed divide among the notions of atomic, molecular and general facts of Russell where you happen to insist on a "scientific fact" that creos may disparge given the extent of the explanation I am having to make(Nuggin).I have always been curious just what it means when evos, Mayr among them, say 'evolution is a fact'. YECS at ICR noticed this change among evolutionists as to where evolutionary evidence was no longer needed because of the "fact of evolution." It may have become no longer needed in the secular environments, but for what reason? Could it be that there is not strict difference of molecular and general facts?Hoot could it not also be that your disagreement with Mod (by the way I like very much what Mod and Ned said here even though I pretty much rabidly in disagreement with both them generally, you I am particularly in disagreemenbt with( that is not as good)) is over Mod's understanding that disjunctions need not be discontinuties and perhaps his vernacular English is better able to circulate the minor points that Russell was making to the Harvard post-Jamesians. I find that I only NEED Russell's distinctions to take account of Gladyshev's RUSSIAN science (before I just had thoughts that mostly went for other's thinking I was crazy etc).So I dont really know what it means to say "scientific fact".+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++The reason that I personally need to go beyond the simplistic idea of a scientific fact is that statistical biogeography relates to autoapomorhies with figures that I can only think being homogenous to Russell notions of streches of seriial relations else the diversity of scientific facts can not be unified by me in my own idea of a university. I fear I may have complicated the information exactly beyond the point that Nuggin was making but just about every time your avatar blinks and I read your posts I have to restrain myself from responding because despite your clear interest in bioLOGOS your use of language to express this interest grates me in ways not even the French Quater in New Orleans does to me. I would like to keep it simple stupid, but we can not if I am right about the fact of it all.
------------------------------------
If you think it will help, I can gather some of Russell's work on factssee here for a start:

quote:

---

In addition to atomic and molecular facts, Russell also held that general facts (facts about "all" of something) were needed to complete the picture of the ...
Bertrand Russell (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

---

Edited by Brad McFall, : link