Brett offers insight on the evidence--so the next time you hear about a major discovery for evolution, don't be intimidated.
Why should we spend time on defining evolution (see “What is Evolution?”)? Here’s why. When we look at the evidence offered for macroevolution, there’s a huge, massive, gi-normous problem. Virtually every shred of evidence offered is evidence of microevolution. Change in finch beak size. Changing colors in peppered moths. Additional wings on fruit flies. Changing human genes.
Recently, I was talking to an atheist student on the campus of U.C. Berkeley. He argued changes within salamanders were proof of macroevolution. Did I deny such changes? Absolutely not. Remember, changes within a group of salamanders (microevolution) are uncontroversial. But I pointed out that his salamanders always remain salamanders. Yes, it is change but it’s merely change within the same species. Finches stay finches, moths stay moths, and fruit flies stay fruit flies. To prove macroevolution, he needed evidence that one species evolves into a completely different kind of organism. Where’s the evidence that salamanders eventually become something other than salamanders? That’s exactly the kind of evidence this young atheist could not produce.
So, the next time you hear about some “major discovery” for evolution, don’t be intimidated. Just ask a simple question: Is this evidence of microevolution or macroevolution?