shaneb
10+ year member
CarAudio.com Veteran
Analogies are not meant to be incapable of breaking down, it's a analogy.That's a flawed analogy on a fundamental level.
Macroevolution isn't limited to compounding microevolution. But it is one "part" of the macroevolutionary tale.
While Wikipedia is not a definitive source, it's late & I really should be in bed right now...so;
"Within the Modern Synthesis school of thought, macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution. Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one - the only difference between them is of time and scale."
"The term "macroevolution" frequently arises within the context of the evolution/creation debate, usually brandished by creationists alleging a significant difference between the evolutionary changes observed in field and laboratory studies and the larger scale macroevolutionary changes that scientists believe to have taken thousands or millions of years to occur............These arguments are rejected by mainstream science, which holds that there is ample evidence that macroevolution has occurred in the past.[6][7] The consensus of the scientific community is that the alleged micro-macro division is an artificial construct made by creationists and does not accurately reflect the actual processes of evolution.............While details of macroevolution are continuously studied by the scientific community, the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. common descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data. Predictions of empirical data from the theory of common descent have been so consistent that biologists often refer to it as the "fact of evolution".[8][9]
I didn't read that second paragraph, talk to you manana.

