As you have said, more than a few hold to views close to the one I have. You want to find fault with that, go ahead, as far as I'm concern, what I believe fits reality. A change that doesn't alter species level but dramatically alters what changed like one type of nerve becoming an optic nerve instead I'd consider that a macro change, the function, and form would have been altered. Many people may not accept that, but many people do not accept a lot of things. Tweaks in beak sizes, fur density, altering what is there already none of those things could alter a species over time to become something else. Altering form and function to build something new would be a macro change as far as I'm concern. A major loss if survived could also cause a macro change, but losses don't build new features; they only tend to limit existing abilities of traits.
YECs do NOT reject speciation (macroevolution)
YECs hold the same views in that they misuse the terms, but what I'm saying is that you don't have to. Knowing how scientists define macroevolution does *not* require you to change your viewpoint. Macroevolution *can* involve larger scale changes but macroevolution does not have to and many cases of macroevolution involve little to no change at all. Again, I'm just talking about definitions here. So in sum:
•Microevolution = change in allele/gene frequency in a population over time
•Macroevolution = evolution at or above the species level. Speciation (the origin of new species) is an example of macroevolution. Macroevolution applies to large scale changes you object to but also includes events where there is little to no change.
Speciation = origin of a new species. If individuals in a population stop interbreeding then by definition they are new species.
Here's some more information where I go into greater detail about these things: https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/the-evidence-for-evolution?page=7#comment-55673020
***So here's what I recommend: In order to show accurate understanding of the terms you should tell people that you have no problem with microevolution and that you have no problem with macroevolution and speciation that results in little to no change in morphology (like with the Arctic gulls example; they're still gulls), but that you DO have a problem with macroevolution that involves large scale changes in morphology.
Then the additional thing that would be helpful is for you to clarify your position on large scale changes and "how much is too much evolution"? See my new post to you about this: https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/how-much-is-too-much-evolution?page=1&newCommentCount=1#comment-57101716
I have read your remarks. That is why I have responded the way that I have.
Then I guess we have reached another place where we disagree, I define terms the way I think I should and you think I'm a ... whatever term you have for me or my opinion today.
We have reached a point where you have single handedly decided that you can change the meaning of technical terms specific to a scientific field of study that developed within that field of study. You have decided to tell scientists who came up with the terms that they are defining their own words incorrectly. It's one thing to misuse words out of ignorance, it's another thing entirely to know better and still insist on doing so. You might as well claim a rook is a pawn. No one of course can prevent you from making up any old definition you want in your head. But that won't fly in the real world or change how scientists actually define the terms, and if you insist on saying the terms mean something else, then people will simply take that as an indication that you are uninformed on the subject.
We have reached a point where you have single handedly decided that you can change the meaning of technical terms specific to a scientific field of study that developed within that field of study. You have decided to tell scientists who came up with the terms that they are defining their own words incorrectly. It's one thing to misuse words out of ignorance, it's another thing entirely to know better and still insist on doing so. You might as well claim a rook is a pawn. No one of course can prevent you from making up any old definition you want in your head. But that won't fly in the real world or change how scientists actually define the terms, and if you insist on saying the terms mean something else, then people will simply take that as an indication that you are uninformed on the subject.
Yes, bad me, good you.
If that's the way you need to spin it to avoid dealing with the fact that you would get marked wrong on a biology test. Seems like an awful waste of time and energy though when you could just simply make the necessary correction and move on. Doing so doesn't even affect your opinion about what can or cannot happen in evolution. In fact, with the exception of some of the qualifications that you add, you have the *gist* correct. All I'm saying is that you need to understand that macroevolution is change at or above the species level and so it includes speciation events where there is little to no change in morphology. So in conversation you should simply make that distinction that you have no problem with macroevolution and speciation that involves what you would call "inconsequential change," but do have a problem with macroevolution/speciation that involves "consequential change" in morphology. Understanding that nuance will put you light years ahead of most. In fact, so rare is the occurrence for a YEC/IDer (or even just a non-scientist in general) to exhibit this level of understanding that it would truly set you apart (in a good way!). It's the type of thing that instead of simply writing a person off would cause one to pause and say, "Wow! This is not some run of the mill person regurgitating the same common misconceptions. This guy's done his homework and knows what he's talking about."
We don't see things the same way, and I'm not taking a biology test so how I would fare on it is unimportant to me.
What you seem to be missing is that if it is your goal to take on evolution, then if you use the words of biologists themselves in a different way from how they use them, then that is going to create real confusion, which is the fundamental point of this OP. So *at minimum* if you want to employ your own private definitions of words like macroevolution, then at *bare minimum* any time you take "macroevolution" to task, so to speak, you should at least make it very clear that you are using "macroevolution" in a different way from how biologists employ the term. At least do that.
I don't see small changes adding up to a new circulatory system where none existed before in the universe; if the first life didn't have them, that type of evolution I don't believe is remotely possible, no matter how you categorize it. I don't see major changes in form and function occurring all at once either. Overtime or all at once, major changes in form and function mutation into new features and forms is a no-go for me. I also don't see how a portion of any species losing the ability to mate and have offspring with its own species amounts to anything other than a loss, not a macro change that could lead to new, more complex lifeforms.
I understand and I'm not disputing any of that with you in this OP.
My "problem" is that you don't listen. In THIS thread I have repeatedly said that I'm NOT arguing for or against evolution, but simply asking people to use the same definitions that scientists use to avoid confusion. Why is that so difficult to understand?
In life people don't always use the same words the same way, get over it I gave you my definition as I use the word for clarity's sake. You have an issue, the world doesn't speak the way you want, countless people don't use words the way you think they should. Do you think when someone here says evolution they mean the same thing as everyone else? Talking to you is like pulling teeth, the exact word the exact way, the answer has to framed like this or that or it is unacceptable. You can state you know what I mean, but still go off, get over yourself.
As I said you don't listen to people. I SAID KEEP YOUR DEFINITION. I said go ahead and use your own made up definition but suggested you at least let people know you're defining the word differently from how scientists do so people don't get confused. Is that request really so unreasonable???
Well, I don't speak for all of science, for all scientists, all of Christianity, all of the Young Earth Christians, or all of anything else; I can only speak for me. I wasn't aware of your position in life; you must be very busy making sure everyone speaks the way you think they should!
You make this personal and it's not. This is not about my private definition vs. yours, but the ACTUAL ACCEPTED scientific definitions of scientific words that scientists themselves came up with and defined. Of course there are all sorts of popular misconceptions and so-called "definitions" of evolution, microevolution, macroevolution, etc. that people have. But that's the point: people often misuse and misunderstand scientific terms. Should we not then correct and educate? As a science educator it is in fact my job to do so. If a doctor tells me I'm misusing a medical term, then I'm going to correct it. If *you* tell me I'm misusing a computer programming term, then I will believe you and correct myself. I'm not going to insist that I can define technical terms in your field any way that I want. Why would I (or anyone) do that?
Yes, word definitions do change and we update our understanding accordingly when that happens, but that still does not give us license to make up our own private definitions in contradiction of this, and it makes no sense why you would want to argue the point.
Microevolution = change in allele frequency in a population over time
Macroevolution = evolution at or above the species level (e.g., speciation)