As we saw in my last article on Creation Versus Evolution, evolutionists often deceptively twist the definitions of science in an attempt to prove their theory. Besides the definitions of operational and historical science being reversed, which we examined in the last article, they also distort the definition for the word evolution. There are two different types of evolution, and these two types are in no way equal. Microevolution, the first type, is accepted as good operational science by evolutionists and creationists alike. It refers to the small changes within a species caused by natural selection. The Bible actually supports this type of evolution. When Noah and his family left the ark after the global flood, at least two of every kind of animal left with them. Each of these kinds began breeding within their kind, and as the decades passed variety among each kind developed. For example, the genetic makeup for the vast variety of dog breeds that we see in our world today was all contained within the original two dogs Noah rescued aboard the ark. After leaving the ark, these two dogs began populating. Their descendants eventually migrated to different areas of the globe, causing their breeding pools to grow smaller and more select. As the generations passed, their descendants began to lose the broader amount of genetic information contained in the original dogs who populated that area. This smaller breeding pool caused certain unique features to become more and more pronounced. For instance, in the climates where cold weather reigned the dogs with thicker fur flourished while the short haired dogs vanished. In this manner, size, color, length of hair, thickness of hair, color of eyes, face shape, body shape—every aspect of the original two dogs—micro evolved into the vast collection of breeds present today. This is variation within a species, or microevolution.
What the Bible does not teach, and what has never been proven by science, is the second type of evolution—macroevolution. Macroevolution involves the idea that all organisms on earth share one common ancestor by descent with modification. It is not the amount of change that separates macroevolution from microevolution, but its type and direction. While microevolution involves a loss of genetic information (smaller genetic pool) which causes variation within a species, macroevolution involves an addition to that information—addition that comes from nowhere. This is what has never been proven! There is no scientific evidence that additional information has ever been added into a species from nowhere. For a solely short hair breed to regain its long hair, it must mix with a breed that still contains the genetic information for long hair. The genetic information for long hair doesn’t create itself, which is what macroevolution teaches and is completely contrary to science.
This is where Darwin’s Tree of Life falls on its face. It intertwines the definitions of microevolution and macroevolution as though they were one and the same. Regretfully, evolutionists today still continue this same deceptive practice. They use microevolution examples (changes within a species) to argue macroevolution (billions of bits of new genetic information added from nowhere) in the molecules-to-man sense. Yet according to true science, variation within a species or kind cannot be used as evidence that all kinds evolved from one common ancestor. To the regret of many young girls, no matter how many millennium you tack onto the equation, a frog will never become a prince.
“The laws of statistics show that favorable mutations are so improbable that they will most likely never even happen once in twenty billion years, let alone happen millions of times. The laws of science absolutely preclude evolution, pointing towards degradation of life’s complex systems, and not toward evolutionary integration” (The Young Earth Theory, John D. Morris, PH.D. pg. 41).
For more material on Creation Versus Evolution visit RockLan Publications online.