I have been on several evolution mailing lists, and in all of them it is the
case most discussions get stuck on the macro-micro evolution topic. It is
commonly the case that one person is arguing that evolution is false,
because we don't see macroevolution happening around us; the other argues
that it is true because we can see it happening, like in the peppered moth,
fruit fly, and Galapagos finches examples.
It is my argument that in order for any progress to be made there must be
some distinction made between macro and micro evolution. Although it is the
case that microevolution is needed for macroevolution to occur, it does not
stand to reason that because microevolution happens so does macroevolution.
There is a sea of difference between the two and to try to equate the one to
the other is a grave error.
So having said all of that I think that it would be to our benefit to
distinguish between the two, and make it known in our discussions which one
we are referring to.
Best Regards,
J.D.