Summations Only

I don't think it is important. It will always drawing an arbitrary line on a gradual process, and I don't think it even matters. Micro and macro evolution, being defined as speciation and morphological changes, are dependant on species as a unit (at least in biology, rather than creation science). But species aren't units, and so dividing micro from macro is just as problematic and useless as diving species from each other. It just leads to the question of 'why is macroevolution an important term?'.In conclusion, a one-size fits all method of determining species will always cause problems. It's subjective, and thus useless outside of the obviously distinct species.That's my opinion anyway.

---

Help to inform the public - contribute to the EvoWiki today! What do you mean "You can't prove a negative"? Have you searched the whole universe for proofs of a negative statement? No? How do you know that they don't exist then?!

Branching is what accounts for the structure of the tree, but it is completely useless to try to distinguish the exact line between a bough, a branch and a twig. You don't really need to know what the precise definition of a twig is to study how they form. So, we need to have a definition for species to study how species form. Well, that just brings me to the questions of: why do we want to know exactly when speciation has occured? We don't really need to know that to understand the processes involved.

---

Help to inform the public - contribute to the EvoWiki today! What do you mean "You can't prove a negative"? Have you searched the whole universe for proofs of a negative statement? No? How do you know that they don't exist then?!