English
Português
Español
Français
Answer
Microevolution is an undisputed, well-documented, naturally occurring biological process that takes place daily. It involves the reorganization, alteration, and/or loss of existing genetic material through sexual reproduction and/or genetic mutation, resulting in relatively minor (“micro”) changes within a population. For instance, when two long-haired dogs produce a short-haired puppy, it illustrates microevolution (we will explore the reasons shortly).
On the other hand, macroevolution is a more contentious, theoretical extension of microevolution that necessitates the introduction of new genetic material. It is thought to bring about significant (“macro”) changes, such as the evolution of an amphibian into a reptile or a reptile into a bird.
Macroevolution is a significant concept because proponents of Darwinism argue that it is the mechanism behind their belief that all life originated from a common ancestral source. While microevolution involves minor (“micro”) biological alterations and macroevolution entails major (“macro”) biological transformations, many Darwinists claim that macroevolution is essentially the cumulative effect of microevolutionary changes over time. This extrapolation from microevolution seems logical. Consequently, Darwinists frequently use evidence supporting microevolution to support macroevolution. Nevertheless, since macroevolution demands the addition of new genetic material, no amount of reorganization, alteration, or loss of existing genetic material can lead to macroevolution. In essence, microevolution cannot result in macroevolution. Darwinists incorrectly link the two concepts. Let us now delve deeper into both microevolution and macroevolution.
Microevolution
To begin with microevolution, consider a scenario where the dog genome contains genes for both long hair (H) and short hair (h). Now, envision
The very first dogs possessed both genes (Hh). If two Hh dogs bred, half of the Hh from one dog would combine with half of the Hh from the other dog through sexual reproduction, resulting in four possible outcomes for offspring: HH, Hh, hH, and hh puppies.
Now, let’s suppose that the longhair H gene is the dominant gene and the shorthair h gene is the recessive gene. This means that when a dog possesses both genes, only the longhair H gene will be expressed, leading to the dog having long hair. Therefore, if two longhair Hh dogs bred, it is likely they would have three longhair puppies (HH, Hh, and hH) and one shorthair puppy (hh). The occurrence of two longhair dogs having a shorthair puppy exemplifies a change within a population resulting from the rearrangement of preexisting genetic information, known as microevolution.
If a longhair Hh dog bred with a shorthair hh dog, the chances are they would have two longhair puppies (Hh and hH) and two shorthair puppies (hh and hh). In contrast, if two shorthair hh dogs bred, they would only produce shorthair hh puppies. If this group of shorthair hh dogs became isolated from the longhair HH, Hh, and hH dogs, they would lose access to the longhair H gene entirely and form an “isolated gene pool.” In the case of dogs, isolated gene pools are referred to as “purebreds.” Similarly, if a group of longhair HH dogs became isolated from the shorthair h gene, they would be classified as purebred. On the other hand, the longhair Hh and hH dogs would be termed “mutts.” Human breeders have been leveraging this biological phenomenon for millennia, selecting dog pairs for mating based on their appearance to enhance and diminish traits gradually over time, thereby introducing new breeds.
Genetic Mutation
Now, envision that within a longhair Hh population, a genetic mutation hindered the expression of the longhair H gene, and this mutation was perpetuated throughout the population. Consequently, the once longhair population would transition to shorthair, not
Because of the rearrangement of genes through sexual reproduction but due to genetic mutation.
Another significant instance of microevolution through genetic mutation occurs when a population of insects develops resistance to a specific pesticide, or when bacteria become resistant to antibiotics. In these cases, mutation causes the insects or bacteria to lose the ability to produce the enzyme that interacts with the poison. Consequently, the pesticide or antibiotic has no effect. However, the insects or bacteria do not acquire any new genetic information; they lose it. This is not an example of macroevolution, as commonly misunderstood, but of microevolution. As biophysicist Dr. Lee Spetner explains, “All of the mutations that have been examined on a molecular level show that the organism has lost information and not gained it.” (“From a Frog to a Prince,” documentary by Keziah Films, 1998)
Macroevolution
Now, let’s delve into macroevolution. Darwinists posit that all life is genetically interconnected and has originated from a shared ancestor. The initial birds and mammals are thought to have evolved from a reptile; the first reptile is believed to have evolved from an amphibian; the first amphibian is believed to have evolved from a fish; the first fish is believed to have evolved from a lower life form, and so forth, until tracing back to the first single-celled organism, which is believed to have evolved from inorganic matter. [The acronym to remember is FARM: Fish to Amphibian to Reptile to Mammal.]
The very first single-celled organism did not contain all the genetic information for a human. Therefore, for humans to have eventually evolved from a primitive single-celled organism, a substantial amount of genetic information had to be added along the evolutionary path. Change resulting from the introduction of new genetic information is termed “macroevolution.”
The controversy surrounding macroevolution and its theoretical nature stems from the fact that there is no known method for entirely new genetic information to be added to an organism’s DNA through natural processes.
With genetic information being added to a genome, Darwinists have been hopeful that genetic mutation would offer a mechanism. However, Dr. Spetner explains, “I do not believe that the neo-Darwinian model can explain large-scale evolution [i.e., macroevolution]. What they struggle to explain is the accumulation of information. …And not only is it improbable mathematically, but experimentally, no mutation has been found that actually adds information. In reality, every beneficial mutation observed reduces information; it diminishes information.” (Ibid.)
Creation vs. Evolution
When Creationists express disbelief in evolution, they are not referring to microevolution but to macroevolution. Microevolution is a scientifically observed phenomenon. What Creationists reject is Darwin’s extrapolation of macroevolution from microevolution. Unlike microevolution, there is no solid scientific evidence supporting macroevolution, and in fact, there is substantial evidence against it. Therefore, the distinction between microevolution and macroevolution is crucial for those engaged in the creation-vs.-evolution discussion.
