One of the things that is most commonly seen amongst the creationist community is the notion of microevolution, which states that evolution on a small scale, limited to mostly simpler organisms, does happen. Often, the term macroevolution is associated with this and says that large creatures can’t do the same.
The human body is made up of so many smaller cells, and bacteria works for us in so many ways… It’s hard to imagine that this supposed microevolution couldn’t happen for say… a few million years… and produce an entirely new species. At least it’s hard for me to imagine that.
But there’s an underlying issue here. One that is often overlooked, and one that I’d say many people don’t know about.
Intelligent Design proponents, also known as creationists, neo-creationists, or IDiots, state that organisms have appeared suddenly because certain features about them are too complex to have evolved. In fact, they say that small changes can happen in bigger animals (such as ‘Darwin’s finches’) but that some forms of bacteria can’t develop a flagella ‘motor’.
Overall, their main thing seems to be to deny that anything evolves in any way sometimes and then at other times assert that certain things do evolve. What a confused bunch.
Could this mean that they’re saying what some people want to hear and then coupling it with what they themselves want to hear? Wouldn’t that make them liars? Wouldn’t that make the whole prospect that they push anti-intellectual? Anti-science? Why yes, yes it would!
Let’s look at some examples for a site that is against evolution. First, this:
In case you tuned in late, here’s the simplified background. The flagellum is a little tail that bacteria spin to move from place to place. This little tail is driven by a very complex, incredibly tiny biologic motor. Intelligent Design proponents claim that there is no way such a complex motor could have evolved by chance. The basis of their argument is that all the parts have to be in place and functional for the parts to provide any survival advantage.
Yes. So if this couldn’t have evolved by chance… where does microevolution come in since, arguably, the changes in the DNA themselves are more complex per generation even if the changes aren’t so apparent…?
Source: Flogging the Flagellum
Notably, they never state what they mean by microevolution that I’ve seen yet. They first state the notion of irreducible complexity is true, and never even mention microevolution, even though the flagella ‘motor’ would be a case of microevolution in itself. Its evolution is exactly the same as the macroevolution they claim could occur in ‘Darwin’s finches’ (their beaks)! But yet macroevolution doesn’t happen?
Well, let’s see what another article on the site has to say about microevolution.
This kind of variation is called “microevolution.” Microevolution is a real scientific process, which can (and should) be studied in a laboratory. No creationist organization that we are aware of disputes the reality of microevolution. No creationist organization that we are aware of protests the teaching of microevolution in public schools.
The disagreement is about “macroevolution,” which is an entirely different process. Macroevolution is not just a whole lot of microevolution building up over time. Microevolution is a process that involves the shuffling, and sometimes loss, of genetic information. Macroevolution would require the spontaneous generation of previously non-existent genetic information.
Natural selection can produce limited variation by selecting and combining the most advantageous existing characteristics. Natural selection cannot, however, invent entirely new characteristics from thin air.
Confusion arises because the term “evolution” is used for both microevolution and macroevolution. Evolutionists falsely claim that since microevolution has been proved to be true, macroevolution must be true as well.
Source: One Million Dollars!
Doesn’t it sound like they’re the ones confused? They state that no creationist organization disputes microevolution and then say it doesn’t happen on another article. Foot in mouth, or hook in mouth? Microevolution, as the name implies, pertains to small things. Macroevolution, as the name implies, pertains to large things. Funny is that neither term exists within science and is only laid out by the IDiot community. However, with DNA, not only does it shuffle, but it provably gets added from generation to generation. That’s also been observed! Where do they mention this? They won’t. They have an agenda, and it’s not pure.
As is said a lot: if small changes happen in small things in a short period of time, large changes happen in large things in a long period of time. That’s just how it works.
So let’s have a quick rundown:
- State that evolution doesn’t happen.
- Make sure you state that it doesn’t happen because even simple lifeforms are irreducibly complex.
- Say that it actually does happen…
- …But only by shuffling DNA to make someone grow an ear on their ass…
- …and fail to state that such is not evolution at all.
- Never retract statements on either side.
- Keep promoting both sides.
- Promote to gullible people.
It’s a confused bunch, must say. Strangely, this is actually something I learned from my lawyer uncle: trap people. Find statements they have made that disagree with other things they’ve said, then make sure they still agree with both. If they do… well… you know what happens next.
The intelligent community seems to be killing themselves to live. Let’s say one thing, then say the exact opposite, then tell both sides when each side is warranted!
Yeah, it’s not working, guys.