In the macro/micro discussion, which we’ve learned are terms used in a relatively small number of legitimate academic papers, I am always curious where one draws a line. It seems a bit simplistic on one side to argue that there is no distinction, but the other side emphasizes the distinction but to an extreme level. The different between the two in the latter case is whatever it needs to be to reject ‘macroevolution.’
I see. It sounds really sciencey but that’s not really that rigorous and a bit strawmanish. Is losing limbs, hair and other feature while gaining a few other a gain or loss of statistical information as it would have been as cetaceans document as they transition from land dwelling mammals.
Anyways, my interest lies in phylogenies like this one:
I always wonder how far one allows ‘micro’ changes to go and where one draws the line for that which is ‘impossible.’ Like can all of these birds be ‘microevolution?’
But maybe let’s expand it a bit and can anyone say when ‘micro’ clearly stops:
