Microevolution and Macroevolution

Evolutionists sometime define evolution as ““a change in the gene pool of a population over time” or more specifically, “any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.”” That’s a pretty broad definition and would include nearly any tiny change in a population such as a variation in the light/dark ratio of the peppered-moth population. Creationists readily acknowledged that such changes are truly occurring. However, we do not believe that one kind of animal can evolve into a completely different kind of animal such as is required by the Theory of Evolution (ToE).

To distinguish between the tiny changes (which we do observe) and the kind-changing changes (which we don’t observe) some people have adopted the terms Microevolution and Macroevolution. Both evolutionists and creationists use these terms and both generally agree in their meanings. However, I believe these terms are grossly misleading and I discourage creationists from using them. I’ll show you why:

Evolutionists seem to imply that macroevolution is nothing more than the accumulation of microevolution – that is, a bunch of small changes in a creature will add up to a great big change which would make it a whole new creature. I’ve explained several times how evolution and natural selection are different. Natural selection is the elimination of traits unsuited to an environment. But for animals to evolve, they must acquire traits. The supposed first common ancestor did not have scales, hair, feathers, skin, organs, bones, etc. For a molecule to become a man, it must have acquired new traits over and over again. So we see that natural selection (the elimination of traits) is the exact opposite of evolution (the acquiring of traits).

You don’t have to be a financial guru to understand that no one can build a business by losing a little bit of money each year. It doesn’t matter how long you work at it, eventually you have to make money or the business will fail. In that same fashion, natural selection cannot turn a molecule into a man by continuously eliminating traits. For dinos to become birds, for example, they must at some point have acquired feathers. I would be more apt to believe evolution if the theory taught that dinosaurs were originally birds that had lost their feathers – only that would still not explain the origin of feathers in the first place.

The types of changes we observe make evolution impossible so I don’t call them evolution (either micro- or macro-). If you’re discussing changes in a population, I would recommend using the term natural selection instead of microevolution and evolution instead of macroevolution. This will help you avoid the bait-and-switch tactic used by evolutionists: “Evolution is change, we see change, therefore all organisms had a common ancestor.” Don’t let them get away with this; not all changes are equal!