When does microevolution turn into macroevolution?

Nuggin: This is close to how creationists define it, yes. Speciation, though, has been observed. Creationists admit this. They just deny (their 'breeding' criterion not withstanding) that the observed change is 'macro' evolution.The logical consequence of this denial is that 'macro-evolution' is not speciation at all. It necessarily involves some additional evolutionary change beyond the species level.What sort of change that might be--and why additional speciation events of the kind already observed aren't adequate to drive them--is something creationists have never explained. Speciation has also been observed, though, and creationists admit this. They just admit the speciation while deying any 'macro' evolution.Change 'within a species' is thus irrelevent to the question. The issue really comes down to this: What is the difference between the evolution of one species to another that creationists admit (speciation) and the evolution of one species to another creationists deny ('macro-evolution')?

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

I appreciate your concerns, Nuggin. But it's not a bad thing at all, not at all, for fundies to witness scientists in discussion. They get to see people who really have taken the trouble to understand these subjects, who sort through evidence and discuss it, who don't repeat one-size-fits-all answers learned by rote. They get to see the basic innocuousness and fundamental honesty of the whole scientific enterprise (such a contrast the reality makes with the picture they've been given of it!). And in the course of the discussion they are introduced to concepts, issues, and unsolved mysteries they didn't even know existed. They get to see what open inquiry and real expertise look like.It's good for them. For some, it will be the first experience of these things.It's okay.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.