Macroevolution is a Myth

Microevolution is Science, Macroevolution is Myth

Most textbooks will show a variety of one species such as several breeds of dog and claim they all descended from an original pair of dogs. On the next page the textbook will claim that this is proof we evolved from soup. The species they use vary book to book. I have seen squirrels, finches, snakes, frogs, and dogs given. Dogs and finches are the most popular, but the logic is the same. A group of one type of animal is given and claimed to all be related. Then the next page claims that all of life is related. These authors use a manipulation technique called a bait-and-switch. They prove fact 1 to be true, and then claim fact 2 is true as a result without proving such.

We call two very different things evolution, and they are actually opposites. That is macroevolution and microevolution. Macroevolution is the picture we see of the monkey turning into man. It is one thing becoming something new and better. Macroevolution is one thing becoming something else. It has not been observed, and cannot happen, even by the methods it claims creates macroevolution. Macroevolution claims that enough time and minor changes leads to something completely different. This sounds nice on paper, but it ignores the laws of nature that limit these changes. Macroevolution is unproven and not possible.

Then we have microevolution that exists as a result of sin. Through sin entering the world, we have suffering and deterioration which leads to mutation, disease, and changes that are normally for the worse. The only major exceptions of these changes not being for the worse are examples like that of a snail shell pattern changing. We have a small shift in a phenotype, but as we will show later, this is not evolution. For us to understand this better, let's look at DNA. We understand DNA to be our instructions. Our organs and make up are dictated and built according to these DNA blueprints. These plans are incredibly complex and were originally perfect as written by our Creator. Microevolution says we can breed one dog into another dog (as long as the DNA exists for it). Macroevolution says I can eventually breed a dog into a turtle. Microevolution deals with science, where macroevolution belongs in the realm of hopeful blind faith. Macroevolution is why half of my textbook collection is asking students to answer ridiculous questions about a supposed ancestor between pufferfish and humans.

Have you ever built a large Lego set? I had one as a kid. I tried to follow the instructions, but several of the steps confused me, so I either skipped that, or took my best guess at it. That meant I had something similar to the finished project. It wasn't the same and it wasn’t as good. That is microevolution. As Christians we believe all dogs came from one type of dog. We just believe that the instructions have become messed up, perhaps step 38 in the manual is ripped out, or step 12 is repeated. Nothing truly new gets made as a result of these changes. There is only so much rearranging I can do with the Lego pieces. Two of my siblings collect Minecraft Lego sets. I could sneak in and tear out a page of instructions for one of their sets, I could even stick that page back in the manual somewhere random. No matter what I do with their instructions, they will not be able to take their minecraft set and turn it into the Lego Death Star. We see macroevolution limited with just legos, and the smallest unit of life is far more complicated than a lego.

God originally created a dog far more majestic than we have today, it was probably similar to a breed of wolf. Today, we could probably still take a wolf and breed it down to a chihuahua. All of the things to become a chihuahua are in that wolf’s DNA. However, we cannot breed a chihuahua back into a wolf, let alone breed it into a bird or pufferfish (that is macroevolution). Why can we not breed this mouse looking dog back to the majestic wolf? We deleted too much of the instructions. We no longer have the ability to breed a wolf. It is simply not in the chihuahua’s DNA.

When we are breeding our hypothetical chihuahua we are deleting and mutating the wolf’s DNA. We are removing the noble fur of the wolf and leaving a patchy coat, we are deleting the DNA for the athletic legs and leaving feeble twigs and so on. We shorten and corrupt the DNA to create the Chihuahua. That is microevolution. We can intentionally make breeds like this, or nature left on its own will add change. We have to realize that these observable changes, both by man and nature are not for the better for the organism. When we destroy or mutate something, we are making a creature that is worse off and more prone to disease. We are not making something new. When we bred chihuahuas, pugs, and bulldogs we bred a worse wolf. We bred a worse form of its previous existence to fit a human need or want. Plants likewise fall in this category. We can breed the details we want, but never something completely new. If we want a new variety of orange, we start with a citrus plant or existing orange tree. Why? The DNA to breed the orange is there. You won’t see a farmer starting with an apple to breed a better orange, the DNA needed does not exist. In nature, the focus is through different processes like the notion of ‘the survival of the fittest’ to either remove a trait or focus on an existing trait. In the world of nature, we do not see “new” being created. The story of microevolution is of continued corruption to survive the current situation. It is never progression and it never has the happy ending the proponents of macroevolution believes in.

No one will believe that a chihuahua is supreme to the wolf. If we let the Chihuahua roam free like the wolf, it is going to be eaten in a week by a chipmunk or something.

What is Macroevolution?

Macroevolution is the idea that all of life originated from one common ancestor, some form of primordial soup. This idea claims that organisms given enough time will turn into something completely different. While microevolution deals with change that is ultimately destructive to our DNA, macroevolution is the idea that DNA instructions can somehow become and build something completely different When you see the evolutionary ladder image of the crawling monkey becoming man, this is a common example dealing with macroevolution. Instead of deletions to our DNA, our DNA is becoming a set of instructions for something completely different. While one process is destructive and limiting, the other process claims that adding enough time will cause the process to become creative and progressive somehow. This supposed fact is often repeated, but nowhere we look will give evidence for this process. It is nothing more than a religious belief. Popularity and repetition do not make a fact true. This process is simply not capable of happening, no matter how much it may be repeated.

“They haven't eliminated religion from the public school. They have eliminated Christianity and have replaced it with an anti-God religion—humanism.” ― Ken Ham