When does microevolution turn into macroevolution?

They were certainly gradual - just because they happened more quickly than the background equilibrium does not change that. Gradual has several definitions - in evolutionary terms, gradualism is mostly contrasted with saltation.I assume you are not proposing that some macroevolutionary events must have occurred saltatory?The alternative definition of gradualism is phyletic gradualism - a constant rate of small changes. This kind of gradualism is what people not entirely familiar with evolutionary history believe is the reason given for macroevolution - however not even Darwin believed this kind of gradualism...its a misundersanding of his position and no more.TD seems to have misunderstood this position, but by saying that some macroevolutionary events are not gradual, you seem to be perpetuating this misunderstanding. All evolutionary events are gradual.

I don't know a great deal about that specific event. I ask again, are you suggesting it happened saltatory? You are talking like gradualism and punctuated equilibrium are mutually exclusive, right after I explained to you why they are not. I do not accept phyletic gradualism, which is what I believe you mean here when you say 'gradualism'.

The problem is that if we try and gloss over the whole topic as simple, then it is simply shown to be false.I will not dilute the truth. I will certainly tailor my answers to the person with whom I am discussing something with, gradually increasing the complexity of the discussion.I will not pretend that I agree with everybody here, just to provide the illusion of overwhelming consensus on all issues since that would be a lie. It would be a lie easily seen through, and I will not insult those who do not grasp evolution fully by pretending that there is no legitimate scientific debate.As it turns out, the gradualist vs saltationist point of view was sort of a genuine controversy. If somebody comes away from this discussion thinking there is no consensus amongst evos about gradualism, then I know exactly who to blame. It seems a little off because Gould is dead, but he is the one that pretended that people believed in phyletic gradualism just so he could shoot it down (conveniently forgetting that Darwin had already discussed punctuated equilibrium as part of his gradualist vision).When a person says 'This could not happen gradually', I feel obliged as someone who is passionate about the truth to correct the statement. If somebody who doesn't know there arsole from their pyrrole I will help them out. However, I will not supress debate just so that we can attract 'Fundies' so we can subsequently bash them around the head with their own ignorance.There are plenty of places we can feel good about ourselves by beating an unarmed opponent. I come here to try and stoke up some quality debate. The information has been provided for the original poster, and I'm sure any further questions will continue to be answered. I almost posted something near the start of this thread, but you seemed to be doing a competent enough job of it so I backed away.

As I explicitly said, I thought the OP was being dealt with admirably and I decided not to join in with that. Do you need me to simplify this? You seem to be labouring under the misunderstanding that I was responding to the OP, and not an entirely different poster. Let me clear this up. I was responding to a statement by Hoot Mon. I know what you are saying Nuggin, and I responded to it. Do you want me to repeat why I do not agree with you? I do not think it is boasting, or showing off. I think it is clearing up an important point. Letting inaccurate statements slide - just to 'benefit the cause' is stupidity. My 'cause' is for better understanding of science.If converting fundamentalists is your cause, I won't apologize for stepping on your toes. I believe that kick starting people into thinking that evolution isn't a Fisher Price science that can be refuted with Fisher Price arguments is far more important than putting on a masquerade of simplicitly to fool them.Neutralmind's questions were being answered - Hoot Mon's statement needed to be answered. So? Do you think fundamentalists are so stupid that they cannot see that scientific debate occurs? What they need to be aware of is what that debate looks like. It doesn't involve patronising and dumbing down. Are you contending that scientific debates don't happen? Are you trying to pretend they don't? Shall we gloss over one of the greatest things about science just so the fundamentalists don't go "See! You guys can't agree on anything.'The point is right there! The difference between scientists and antiscientists should not be hidden away. Scientists do not make absolute incontrovertable statements - there are exceptions and howevers abound in science. Hiding this from fundamentalists hurts important causes more than it helps. Exactly! Does that frighten you? Scientists don't have consensus and aren't afraid of it, and the fundies band together despite their differences?I'm married to the truth, Nuggin, and I won't pretend something isn't true when it is. If you are happy to whistle and look the other way when somebody makes statements you believe to be false just so the fundamentalists don't realize that not all scientists agree with one another about all things - then go ahead. I won't. More to the point - when somebody, anybody, makes a statement that the consensus of scientists disagree with - I'm damn well going to point it out.If Ned had said, 'The reason the sky is blue is because the blue frequencies are polarized by electron-positron interaction at the quantum level which deexcites the rest of the spectrum temporarily.', would you happily ignore that statement to preserve soem futile masquerade? To ensure that the fundamentalists realize the crushing consensus of science and how it has come to a firm conclusion about the sky? Agreed. And when 99 people are all shouting one thing, and 1 person shouts something different, something wrong - I make it a point to try and correct the 1 person so that he may join in with the 99 to make it a 100. Do you have a problem with that?

My point is that 'Ned's explanation' is a load of crap. Its Greek to everyone. Pointing out that scientists don't agree with Ned's explanation should be done.Anyway - this is an interesting debate in its own right - as per Moose do you want a Great Debate, or perhaps a general new discussion on it? I'm happy to do the PNT.

From what I have read, this isn't proposed to have happened. One did not evolve from the other: they share a common ancestor with a species with a more primitive gut system. Just like we did not evolve gradually from chimpanzees. Because a lack of inbetweens is basically not relevant to punctated equilibrium. Gould tried his best to put this forward, but people insisted on ignoring him. emphasis mineA position, incidentally, that Darwin put forward 100 years before Gould/Eldredge. Punctuated equilibrium is not a theory that rejects gradualism.Edited by Modulous, : Cleaning up the Gould quotes

Something can be both rapid and gradual. They are not mutually exclusive terms. If something happens in grades in a relatively short period of time, it is still gradual.