Microevolution Is Not Macroevolution

According to an article in the San Diego Union Tribune, only half of those surveyed in a recent Gallup poll "believed evolution is definitely or probably true." This baffles some evolutionists.

Their frustration is understandable given their perception of how foundational evolution is to many aspects of life: "Without a clear understanding of the principles and processes of evolution, our society would be unable to effectively produce food, treat infectious diseases, search for new ways to treat human genetic ailments or find new drugs."

The article cites selective breeding of crops, bacteria’s resistance to antibiotics, development of pharmaceutical drugs from plants, changing genetic makeup of cancer cells, and using fruit flies to study human genetic diseases as examples of how understanding evolution has helped our lives.

Sure, everyone believes those examples of "evolution." That’s microevolution. That’s not controversial.

Perhaps the reason so many Americans are unconvinced of evolution is because these examples hardly explain what needs to be explained - macroevolution. This is the process by which a single cell evolves into the myriad of living organisms that exist today without any intelligent intervention.

The careful observer thinks, How does the evolution of bacteria to resist antibiotics or the selective breeding of crops explain the macroevolutionary process?

It doesn’t. But that is precisely what needs to be explained. You can’t just offer examples of microevolution and expect people to buy into the whole macroevolutionary story. Sure, there might be other lines of evidence, but often the only examples offered are the non-controversial microevolution type.

Maybe many evolutionists don't recognize the distinction between micro and macroevolution. It would certainly explain why they seem so surprised that many Americans just aren’t buying the evolutionary (macroevolutionary) story.

blog post |
Alan Shlemon

Give

Give

Give