Part Eight:  MACROEVOLUTION VERSUS MICROEVOLUTION: WHICH DOES EMPIRICAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE SUPPORT?

Despite the lack of fossil evidence (see last week’s blog), evolutionists insist that modern animals evolved from primitive ancestors. Allegedly, according to evolutionary theory, in the distant past all living things shared common ancestors. Over eons of time, they believe, physical modifications occurred as animal types developed new body parts and more complex organs. Eventually, these accumulated modifications resulted in entirely new varieties of animals. The ancestors became extinct, and new species arose to take their place. This is called macroevolution.

The mistake evolutionists make in this assumption is they confuse macroevolution with Microevolution. Macroevolution is pure conjecture. Microevolution is testable, observable, and hence scientific.

Microevolution refers to limited changes that occur in organisms as they adapt to changing environmental conditions within the limits of their created genetic potential, resulting in variations within existing animal types.

Creationists have long recognized microevolution, which is well established scientifically. Selective breeders have used it for centuries to produce hundreds of varieties of dogs, cats, and other domesticated animals, as well as countless varieties of plants. However, these variations do not represent evolution as commonly understood; they did not produce distinct new kinds of animals or plants. In fact, selective breeding contradicts naturalistic evolution because it requires the manipulation of genes through intelligent human intervention—design.

How Microevolution Works in Nature

God created living creatures “after their kind” (Gen. 1:24-25).  In scientific terms, this means God created the original “prototypes” of all the categories of animals that ever existed—extinct and modern. He endowed each created kind with a specific genetic potential, such as we see in families of canines, felines, horses, and so on. There is no evidence, however, as is purported to occur through macroevolution, that one variety of animal ever evolved into another variety. For example, all canines— wolves, coyotes, foxes, jackals, domesticated dogs, and so on—developed from the genetic potential of the first dog-kind. But this is not macroevolution, which claims that modern canines evolved from a pre-dog ancestor. Rather its microevolution, through which the decedents of God’s original created dog-kind utilized their existing genetic potential for adaptive change—but strictly within the limits of their original, created genetic structure.

Microevolution is testable and observable, but science has never been able to demonstrate macroevolution. No one has witnessed the evolution of distinct varieties of animals. Laboratory experiments and observations in nature have only confirmed microevolution. Species can develop no further than the limits of their created genetic potential. (More on this next week.)

In sum, there is a tremendous difference between adaptive changes within animal kinds (microevolution) and the evolution of entirely new kinds of animals from entirely different kinds of animals (macroevolution). Evolutionary scientists who preach macroevolution are merely extrapolating that the “machinery” at work in microevolution also works in macroevolution. There is no proof of this. (C)

The case against macroevolution (Darwinism) gets worse when we look at the “mechanism” Darwinists claim drives evolution. This will be the topic of next week’s blog.

NOTE:  This series of blog posts—as well as other apologetic topics I’ve blogged during the past six-plus years—are further developed in my recently released, updated edition of Defending Your Faith; Reliable Answers for a New Generation of Seekers and Skeptics (Kregel Publications, 2019). I provide a short synopsis on my homepage: danstory.net. or go to Amazon for information.