A few days ago, I wrote a post about micro- versus macro-evolution. As you might imagine, it stirred up quite a debate regarding creation and intelligent design. That wasn't my purpose. I was simply trying to come to an agreement on what some specific terms mean.

However, Contagion said:

Who said anything about separating the two, personally I think there is no difference. It's all part of the same process.

I'll put details in the extended entry for those who just aren't all that interested...

Micro-evolution is a process that can be observed today. It's primary purpose is to allow a species to STAY THE SAME. It is adaptation. A very simple example of micro-evolution is people putting on coats in the winter and taking them off in the summer -- adaptation to stay the same and not change.

The bird beaks that Darwin observed were an example of micro-evolution. He observed a generation of birds that grew longer beaks and determined that was macro evolution in action -- that the birds had changed, permanently, into a new bird because it was "survival of the fittest."

However, if he had observed the birds for a longer period of time -- a number of generations and seasons, he would have found that the birds grew longer beaks during dry seasons and shorter beaks during wet seasons. These particular birds ate bugs in trees. When the season was dry, it took longer beaks to reach the bugs in the trees.

This is an example of micro-evolution because the birds are adapting to their environment in an attempt to stay the same and survive. They're not turning into dogs or cats, they are staying birds, and they are adapting to survive and CONTINUE to be birds.

Macro-evolution, on the other hand, is the proposal that one species, through some not quite defined process of mutation, change into other species. This has never been actually observed today -- all scientific examples of it have been debunked as untrue.

Some will claim it has been observed in certain instances, but only if you define species in varied ways. Admittedly, even biologists cannot all agree on what the definition of a species is.

Some biologists, including many who support Darwin's theory, will define it rather narrowly. For example, people from Africa and people from America could be determined to be different species. If you define species that narrowly, then you can show evolution by mating members of different species.

If you define species more widely, to only include actually different creatures, such as plants and cats or dogs and horses, then macro evolution cannot be observed. Species who cannot mate do not change into other species. A dog and a cat cannot mate -- a cat will never mutate enough to change into a dog.

Now I'm not trying to completely come up with a discussion about the possibilities of evolution, intelligent design, creation, or anything like that (at least not in this post). I'm just trying to define the terms so a discussion can occur. If we cannot agree on the different terms, we cannot have a discussion.