Why do people keep telling me that the terms micro and macro evolution aren't actual terms used in biology?

Because scientists have figured out that micro (natural selection - with or without mutations) will never get you to macro so they are trying to eliminate the distinction and say micro = macro..

The answer to this question doesn't really require any understanding about biological evolution, it is more important to have an understanding of the 'evolution' of language.

New words, and new terms, to describe thinks can be coined/made up by anyone. If they then find their way into regular usage, either among the population in general or among a defined subset (e.g. scientists) then they become an accepted part of the language.

Often there are different terms used by the general populace than by specialised groups, for example doctors and scientists are more likely to refer to the coccyx, while most people would perhaps call it the tailbone - although there is of course overlap.

Micro- and macro-evolution were NOT originally biological terms, they were made popular because of use by creationists who realised that they could not deny that evolution DID take place but wanted to put limits on it. Once the terms found there way into common usage in the general population it was only a matter of time before they began to be used by biologists (although they are still generally only used in publications aimed at the general population rather than other scientists). Educational organisations and publications in particular will use the terms, if you want to teach people it is important to refer to terms and ideas that they are likely to already know or have heard.

When change in any given population is looked at, it is impossible to identify the point at which 'micro-evolution' becomes 'macro-', there really is no way of really defining a difference between the two.

@ 'Hog..': Speciation (which is what is generally accepted as macroevolution) HAS been observed in many invertebrates. You are no doubt looking for something that evolutionary theory predicts will NEVER happen.

"Micro evolution is observable, and consistent with Biblical revelation. Macro evolution is unobservable, and falls into the realm of blind faith.

But with the advances made in the area of genetics since Darwin's time, it is obvious that macro evolution is impossible, and the fact of micro evolution doesn't change that."

Macroevolution at its most basic (i.e. speciation) has been observed, and the evidence for macroevolution is also observable - it is based on evidence, it is NOT "blind faith".

It would appear that you know very little about "...the advances made in the area of genetics since Darwin's time.." because genetics and DNA analysis provides the best possibly evidence we can realistically expect for macroevolution - it definitely doesn't show it to be impossible.

Biologists have no practical use for the terms microevolution and macroevolution, since there are already more specific taxonomic classifications for lifeforms. Observed changes in allele frequencies in a population are necessarily small and gradual, since too fast a mutation rate tends to be dangerous and lead to extinction.

Because of this, scientists don't go around searching for the elusive "macroevolution" instance or anything like that. It's not a separate part of the evolutionary process, just an arbitrary divide between two things of the exact same mechanism but different timescales. In fact, the only reason the terms were made was so creationists could shift the goalposts arbitrarily to dismiss all evidence of the neverending population mechanics of evolution, and define the implications of the theory as forever unobservable.

For creationists, dishonesty is clearly the main priority. "Macro" evolution is simply a statistical guarantee for long timespans of the process we see happening everywhere today. It's already somewhat pieced together in the fossil record, yet history deniers want to call this faith, as if they admit it is a bad thing to stoop to a level as low as their belief in magic creation :)

The terms initially were not used in the biological science of evolution. However, their popular use has led to the terms being defined and used in some (not all) texts and classrooms. They are also very limited in scope as compared to the larger field of evolutionary biology.

Added: The larger problem with the two terms is that they are badly misused...

The term "macroevolution" frequently arises within the context of the evolution/creation debate, usually used 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. They accept that evolutionary change is possible within what they call "kinds" ("microevolution"), but deny that one "kind" can evolve into another ("macroevolution"). Contrary to this belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level (i.e. speciation) has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature. In creation science, creationists accepted speciation as occurring within a "created kind" or "baramin", but objected to what they called "third level-macroevolution" of a new genus or higher rank in taxonomy. Generally, there is ambiguity as to where they draw a line on "species", "created kinds", etc. and what events and lineages fall within the rubric of microevolution or macroevolution. The claim that macroevolution does not occur, or is impossible, is not supported by the scientific community.

It's iffy really.

If there's one true thing, it's that creationists "misuse" the terms micro/macro.

Micro and macro evolution are not "biologically" real. The terms may be used to describe the magnitude changes in a species, but both terms mean the exact same thing: Evolution.

Macroevolution and Microevolution are the same biological process, just one is more repeated than the other. When creationists say "macro isn't possible" they're misusing the term.

EDIT: Macroevolution is easily observable. Ring species, ERV's, and all the like. Don't use the arguments of liars to forward your views.

I personally wouldn't tell you that they aren't real terms, but they are heavily misappropriated by creationists and don't really mean the things they say they mean. They're both still regular evolution, they're just different magnitudes. There isn't a barrier preventing micro evolution building into macro evolution with time and isolation.

We'll that's really sad that they have stooped so low. They are NOT scientific terms. The quality of science teaching continues to deteriorate.

Edit: by studying biology at university, having parents and grandparents with Masters and pHD's in organic chemistry, and extensive reading and a life-long interest in the subject. How do you know about it? And they have NEVER taught anything about 'macro evolution'.

They actually aren't terms that are used very often. If you go to pubmed (an internet biology research paper achive) and search "evolution", you will get over 350,000 results. When you search "micro-evolution", you only get 16 results. When you search "macro-evolution", you only get 50 results.

The point is, creationists typically think that macro-evolution and micro-evolution are two separate things, when in reality it's just the same thing happening over different time scales.

Micro beings make of spring very fast let's say a million individuals in half a hour. Because of that they evolve very fast. Within days sometimes hours.

Macro organism make of spring a few times in their lifetime so let's say 2 times in a average animal life of 10 years. Because of this they evolve very slowly within 1000 of years the slightest thing maybe happening.

It's not that they aren't actual scientific terms.

It's that they are, they just don't mean what creationists claim they mean.

In the same way that "evolution," "evolutionist," Darwinism," or even "species" don't mean what creationists claim they mean.

And no, using terms correctly wouldn't make creationists more right than using their current straw men does.

The fact remains-

In recorded history mutations have not resulted in a new species. All observed methods of the evolutionary process have shown digression not progression.

So which is right- the theory or the reality of medicine!

I happen to vote with the reality of observed history and not wishful thinking on the part of biologist that speculate.