I can't believe this micro-macro battle is still going on.  It is mainly a matter of definition, but
here is how i see it as a biologist (i don't think many people read this post because of a mistake i
made on line-wrapping, so i fixed the offending wrapper, and here goes:): *modified somewhat, to clarify!!*

<       The term "microevlution" is unfortunately a rather vague one - a bit like cancer or
arthritis!!  This leads to much confusion in the type of general discussions as occur on this list,
where terms are seldom operationally or precisely defined.  Therefore such statements as < Doesn't
all the micro add up to macro?> mean little due to "fuzzy" definition of terms (and in any case,
many evolutionists have rejected gradualistic, "Classically Darwinistic" viewpoints, given the
extreme paucity of obvious or convincing "missing links"(intermediate forms halfway between two
species)).  The term is now most often used to refer to adaptations which occur in local populations
(a good example would be the HIV virus, which has now been shown to "evolve" within the host
organism, until such time as the survivors of the wars between it an the host's immune system are
able to prevail and overpower it, being substantially different from the origional invading
organisms - hence the large number of "strains" of the virus!)  in response to directional stress
(or, if facilitated by humans "selective breeding"!).  The **observable** results, however, are
always just variations (breeds, strains, etc.) of the same species - even over long
(humanly-speaking, ie) time-frames such as that of various food crops, domestic animals, and pets
such as dogs: a poodle and a St. Bernard can be interbred easily (provided the mother is the Saint,
ie!!), since despite large superficial differences, they are both still dogs, decended from other dogs.
    Most of the problems seem at first blush to stem from the fragmented and extremely partial
nature of the "fossil record" - **however*, the fact that species are observed to stay essentially
the same in external form for the duration of their existances, is troubling to many who believe
speciation (= "macro-evolution" (the inferred process by which one species is transformed via
accumulated mutations into a different species) should be regarded as a "fact" ( ie, something so
strongly supported by cold, hard observations as to be considered essentially "proven" by the
majority of the scientific community).  Hence, the recent profusion of such hypotheses as
"punctuated equilibrium" and "hopeful monster" (both of which i'll leave to someone else to
summarize!) - which postulate that speciation usally occurs in such a short period of time that
vanishingly few (i have seen none i would call truly convincing!) demonstrably intermediate forms
between two observed (ie, as fossils) species, are preserved in the fossil record, nor indeed
observed at the present time.
        In summary, i think micro-"evolution" is best used as a term to describe adaptation within a
given population of a species, often via preferrential expression of pre-existing alleles (forms of
a given gene) already present in the gene pool of that species, but sometimes though observable
mutations as well.  "Macro-evolution" is best described as the process of speciation - one species
giving rise to a separate one.  Even most die-hard scientists will agree that the former has been
observed abundantly, while the evidence for the latter is largely "circumstantial" - it has never
been observed directly, even though many would say the evidence strongly points towards it!
Seldom concise in Canada (and occasionally even mistaken :-o  !!)
Ross.>

        Have i created a tautaulogy here, or does the above actually make some sense?  My point is that
"micro" (as defined above) is easily observable, but has not been observed to lead to "macro"
(speciation per se), even in the fossil record (although some proposed "links" are indeed
tantalizing, none have been demonstrated to link two observed species - which would indeed be
convincing evidence, instead of just suggestive!).  If speciation does indeed occur, as the central
process of evolution, it may or may not arise from a simple accumulation of small, incremental,
directional changes over geological (ie, "long") time-frames: we simply  do not yet have enough
evidence to solidly support any of the various evolutionary hypotheses "out there" at the present!
-Ross M.
--
Ross Mayhew: Schooner Specimen Shells: Http://www.schnr-specimen-shells.com
"We Specialize in the Unusual"
Phone: (902) 876-2241; Fax: (603) 909-8552.
But try to find "something for Everyone"!!
Snail Mail: 349 Herring Cove Rd, P.O Box 20005, Halifax, N.S., Canada, B3R 2K9.