When creationist say they don’t believe in evolution, they are not talking about micro evolution. They are referring to macroevolution. Microevolution is a credibly observed scientific phenomenon.
Unlike microevolution, there is no true scientific evidence macro evolution and in fact, there is significant evidence against it. Therefore, the distinction between them is an important one for those interested in creation. My research has determined microevolution is self-evident and can be seen.
But macroevolution is impossible for several reasons. What are the odds that a simple single cell organism could evolve given the complexity of more than sixty thousand proteins of hundred different configurations all in the correct places? Never in eternity! Time does not make impossible things possible. Many different types of dogs can be developed this way, but they can never develop a cat by selectively breeding dogs. Natural selection can never extend outside of the DNA limit.
DNA cannot be changed into a new species by natural selection. The same process of selective breeding is done with flowers, fruits, and vegetables. Why would a bird evolve wing stubs that are useless?
The reason why macroevolution is controversial and remains theoretical is that, there is no way known way for entirely new genetic information to be added to genome.
This is backwards from the evolutionary theory of natural selection, which states that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment. The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment.
All life forms would be a continual blend of characteristics without a clear definition among the species. Everything would be changing, and every animal, insect, and plant would be different.
Despite the tremendous increase in geological activity in every corner of the globe and despite the discovery of many strange and hitherto unknown forms, the infinitude of connecting links has still not been discovered and the fossil record is about as discontinuous as it was.
There is much more, the point being; if you take a watch and smash it, put it into a bag and shake it, it will never put itself back together, no matter how much time goes by.
Time does not make impossible things possible. I believe more and more our origins are being hidden from us, the reasons yet unknown to many. To control the masses, you control what their origins are.
What cannot really be accounted for is the buildup of information as its improbable on the mathematical level. Experimentally, no one has found a single mutation that can point at that, as every beneficial mutation reduces information. Micro evolution leads to sub species and macro evolution leads to formation of new species but it may connect different genus or different families or different order or different classes or different phyla.
Macroevolution is just the accumulation of a lot of microevolution. All species are on the same tree of life. The taxonomy is just a way to place them. All offspring are the same species as their parents.
There is only one evolution. The change of allele frequency in a population over time. All evolution is 'micro'. However, that very small change accumulates over time. We then have 'macro' evolution.
Also, evolution occurs within one population. Separate populations do not evolve together. Other populations only affect as they compete for resources. The definition of evolution doesn't solely rest on change.
Evolution depends on plenty of factors such as environment and interaction with other organisms, and, as is already stated by the others above, the presence of DNA.
The difference between microevolution and macro-evolution for our understanding, we should know these two terms very well what is microevolution and what is macro-evolution.
What we know about evolution is that, it begins with an individual and now due to the environmental factors and many other factors, that individual is changed to something different and it produces a new type of organism.
The materials that are helping this individual to evolve in this sense could be the natural selection which could be the genetic change due to mutation or artificial selection.
Different modes of selection as well as the sexual selection; the mating process and their behavioral process and many things and immigration emigration and all this stuff these things play a vital role in creating the pressure for an organism to change itself to a different organism.
Micro is very small, that means the level of evolution is miniature, and macro means a huge level of evolution. So, micro evolution happens on a small scale. Generally, it happens in within a single population.
Micro evolution us an uncontroversial, well documented, naturally occurring biological phenomenon. It is the process where by preexisting genetic information is rearranged, corrupted or lost through sexual reproduction on a small scale.
While macro-evolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species and it actually spread through populations different populations. For both, the cases of mutation play vital role in establishing the evolution process but in micro evolution it generally resides within a population.
Since we have no evidence for whether changes will be made or that they will accumulate over long periods of time, macro-evolution becomes unrealistic. There are no examples today whether in the field or lab that gives us an idea of this kind of change.
Leaping to fossils to explain macro-evolution is placing the cart before the horse. First it must be demonstrated that, changes will accumulate over time in order to even consider placing fossils in between two different groups of animals to explain how they're related or how one evolved from the other.
As for punctuated equilibrium, it was a nice hypothesis for evolution at one point but there's no scientific evidence backing this as well. The example given here is the oil spill that could affect animals to the point of possibly making mutants of some sort.
We must also consider that the evolutionary process is blind and mindless. Have we ever seen or witness a blind, mindless process in the midst of designing some biological system? How about DNA? DNA is complicated in itself but what about something like the cell?
There's no evidence for macro-evolution. It is outside of the realm of real science. There's nothing wrong with giving it some thought or considering it but for how long? And if there's a better explanation for the existence of biological systems, why not consider it?
Why does it seem that biological systems are programmed to adapt and have variation? Programs are running throughout biological systems. Genetic load is defined by "the reduction in the mean fitness of a population relative to a population composed entirely of individuals having optimal genotypes.
Load can be caused by recurrent deleterious mutations, genetic drift, recombination affecting epistemically favorable gene combinations, or other genetic processes.
Therefore, evolution through small mutations over millions of years is impossible. Also, if fossils of currently existing animals can be found throughout the geologic column they have existed as their own species since the beginning.
The Bible explains that birds and sea animals existed together before there were reptiles or mammals. Before you write off the Bible as a biased religious source, it has been proven time and time again to be historically correct.
Here are some examples; Genesis 1:20 states," And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good."
The fossil record does not show a progressive evolution from simple to complex, it however shows constant complexity throughout the fossil record. Please realize that the Bible is historically proven and would be hypocritical to believe in evolution unless you think recent archaeological finds are fake.
God designed every aspect of the universe, in fact the Latin meaning of universe is single spoken phrase. That's the problem. While they would assert that koalas and bears are the same kind, they wouldn't suggest humans and other apes are closely related.
Even though koala and bear intelligence vary hugely, they wouldn't even make an attempt at drawing a relationship of apes and humans from the evidence.
Fortunately, I've only heard this claim once. Ninety-nine percent of creationists would try to find created kinds by genetic research, though it's a silly endeavor.
Is there a verse(s) where the bible talks about microevolution? When I mean micro evolution is when animals are able to adapt to different environments, not evolution as in a monkey evolving to a human that kind of thing.
I don't know of a specific reference to micro-evolution, but it is certainly implied in Genesis 1, 7-9, where God creates each animal within its "kind", and also the logical conclusion that some animals adapted to a post-flood environment (if they didn't, none would be around today).
The Bible says the different animals and plants reproduced after their kind: So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moved, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good (Genesis 1:21).
Some have taken this to mean that the Bible teaches the "fixity of the species," or the idea that God created every single species and that none of these species ever changed.
It was this idea that turned Charles Darwin against the Bible. In the Galapagos Islands off the coast of South America, Darwin observed species of animals and birds that closely resembled those on the mainland. However, they were not exactly identical.
The discovery of different species led Darwin to believe that all of them had descended from a common pair. He further believed he had observed transitional types in which one species was changing into another.
If this was true, it would contradict what he had been taught about the "fixity of the species. The so-called fixity of the species, as Darwin perceived the Bible to be saying, is not taught in Scripture In fact, it wasn’t even widely taught in the church before the eighteenth century.
Sylvia Baker writes; The idea that species cannot change was certainly not an article of the church before the eighteenth century.
It was then considered quite in accord with the Bible to believe that they could change, though not in the direction of greater complexity. It was not until the eighteenth century that the view became widespread that species cannot change, that they are fixed or immutable.
The man responsible for promoting it was Linnaeus, who is famous as the first man to introduce systematics to biology. He maintained that species as he had defined them represented the kind of the Bible and therefore could not be changed.
This view became widely accepted, insisted on, and carried to absurd limits. At one time it was even taught that there were sixty species of man, each of which had been created separately!
When Darwin made his observations in the Galapagos Islands, the idea that species could not change was both a scientific and theological dogma. When he observed the evidence that suggested they could change, Darwin said, it is like confessing a murder.
The problem was a misunderstanding of what the Bible says. The word translated in Genesis as "kind" is the Hebrew word min. It cannot be equated with our modern term species.
This can be observed from the following passage in the Book of Leviticus; the ostrich, the short-eared owl, the seagull, and the hawk after its kind: the little owl, the fisher owl and the screech owl (Leviticus 11:16,17).
From this passage we see that the Bible recognizes various types of owls, as well as various types of other species. Therefore, the biblical word "kind" is not limited to our modern term "species."
There are many varieties of fish, plants, cattle, as well as men and women. John Klotz comments further: We also need to recognize that the language of the Bible is the commonsense, everyday language of our newspapers.
This language does not change; technical scientific language does change . We may have new species of tomatoes, but they are still the same kind. There may be changes within the species, yet tomatoes have not developed into cantaloupes or watermelons.
There may also have been changes within the dog kind, but these have not developed into lions or bears Hence, what Darwin discovered was not contradictory to what the Bible has to say about kinds.
The Bible teaches "the fixity of the species" in that each biblical kind can only reproduce within certain fixed boundaries. Change within a kind, however, is consistent with biblical teaching.
Today, whenever kinds are crossed, the offspring is always sterile. For example, a donkey and a horse produce a sterile mule. A lion crossed with a tiger produces a sterile liger. Charles Darwin saw this problem and wrote in The Origin of Species. How can we account for species, when crossed, being sterile and producing sterile offspring, whereas, when varieties are crossed, their fertility is unimpaired? There is still no answer to this question today if one accepts the evolution model.
Change is permissible, often the creationist position is caricatured by stating flatly writes: When someone asks me if I believe in evolution, I’ll often say, Why, yes, no, no, yes, no.
The answer really depends on what the person means by evolution. In one sense evolution means change. Do I believe in change? Yes indeed; Ive got some in my pocket. But change isn’t the real question.
Of course, change is just as much a part of the creation model as the evolution model. The question is, what kind of change do we see: change only within type creation or change also from one type to another evolution?
The Bible allows for change or variations within plants and animals. Change is evidence for microevolution or selection. What creationists are denying is the existence of any evidence for macroevolution.
They reject the procedure of using evidence for microevolution as confirming the theory of macroevolution. Unfortunately, a great many people believe that evidence for microevolution proves macroevolution. This is by no means the case.
Furthermore, the Bible limits the amount of change which can happen. Cats cannot mate with dogs, pigs with apes, etc. This limitation is exactly what we find in our world. Hence, the Bible is certainly not unscientific when its says that kinds of plants and animals are limited in the degree in which they can change.