Some creationists believe in microevolution but not macroevolution. Why?

Question

If you believe a species can make a series of small evolutionary changes, what prevents those steps, other than God preventing it, from potentially turning into a major (macro) evolutionary change?
The only rational conclusion I can come up with is that either God has a problem with macroevolution and prevents what would otherwise happen or Man has a problem with the implications of it (ie. man from monkey) and thus denies it.
Did I answer my own question? Or are there other thoughts.

Answer 1

I am a creationist who knows that microevolution is a reality. I will defer to a much more learned and intelligent person than I to speak of macroevolution, Walt Brown, PhD. I realize that this answer will seem extremely long, and maybe it is, but to satisfactorily answer your question, you deserve facts and figures. Here we go...

ORGANIC EVOLUTION (MACROEVOLUTION) HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED
1. The Law of Biogenesis
Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the law of biogenesis. The theory of evolution conflicts with this scientific law when claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes.

Evolutionary scientists reluctantly accept the law of biogenesis. However, some say that future studies may show how life could come from lifeless matter, despite the virtually impossible odds. Others say that their theory of evolution doesn’t begin until the first life somehow arose. Still others say the first life was created, then evolution occurred. All evolutionists recognize that, based on scientific observations, life only comes from life.

2. Acquired Characteristics
Acquired characteristics cannot be inherited. For example, large muscles acquired by a man in a weight-lifting program cannot be inherited by his child. Nor did giraffes get long necks because their ancestors stretched to reach high leaves. While almost all evolutionists agree that acquired characteristics cannot be inherited, many unconsciously slip into this false belief. On occasion, Darwin did.

However, stressful environments for some animals and plants cause their offspring to express various defenses. New genetic traits are not created; instead, the environment can switch on genetic machinery already present. The marvel is that optimal genetic machinery already exists to handle some contingencies, not that time, the environment, or “a need” can produce the machinery.

Also, rates of variation within a kind (microevolution, not macroevolution) increase enormously when organisms are under stress, such as starvation. Such situations would have been widespread in the centuries after a global flood.

3. Mendel’s Laws
Mendel’s laws of genetics and their modern-day refinements explain almost all physical variations observed in living things. Mendel discovered that genes (units of heredity) are merely reshuffled from one generation to another. Different combinations are formed, not different genes. The different combinations produce many variations within each kind of life, as in the dog family. A logical consequence of Mendel’s laws is that there are limits to such variation. Breeding experiments and common observations also confirm these boundaries.

4. Bounded Variations
While Mendel’s laws give a theoretical explanation for why variations are limited, broad experimental verification also exists. For example, if evolution happened, organisms (such as bacteria) that quickly produce the most offspring should have the most variations and mutations. Natural selection would then select the more favorable changes, allowing organisms with those traits to survive, reproduce, and pass on their beneficial genes. Therefore, organisms that have allegedly evolved the most should have short reproduction cycles and many offspring. We see the opposite. In general, more complex organisms, such as humans, have fewer offspring and longer reproduction cycles. Again, variations within existing organisms appear to be bounded.

Organisms that occupy the most diverse environments in the greatest numbers for the longest times should also, according to macroevolution, have the greatest potential for evolving new features and species. Microbes falsify this prediction as well. Their numbers per species are astronomical, and they are dispersed throughout practically all the world’s environments. Nevertheless, the number of microbial species are relatively few. New features apparently don’t evolve.

5. Natural Selection
An offspring of a plant or animal has characteristics that vary, often in subtle ways, from its “parents.” Because of the environment, genetics, and chance circumstances, some of these offspring will reproduce more than others. So a species with certain characteristics will tend, on average, to have more “children.” In this sense, nature “selects” genetic characteristics suited to an environment—and, more importantly, eliminates unsuitable genetic variations. Therefore, an organism’s gene pool is constantly decreasing. This is called natural selection.

Notice, natural selection cannot produce new genes; it only selects among preexisting characteristics. As the word “selection” implies, variations are reduced, not increased.

For example, many mistakenly believe that insect or bacterial resistances evolved in response to pesticides and antibiotics. Instead,
a previously lost capability was reestablished, making it appear something evolved,
a mutation reduced the binding ability, regulatory function, or transport capacity of certain proteins,
a damaging bacterial mutation or variation reduced the antibiotic’s effectiveness even more, or
a few resistant insects and bacteria were already present when the pesticides and antibiotics were first applied.
When the vulnerable insects and bacteria were killed, resistant varieties had less competition and, therefore, proliferated.
While natural selection occurred, nothing evolved and, in fact, some biological diversity was lost.

The variations Darwin observed among finches on different Galapagos islands is another example of natural selection producing micro- (not macro-) evolution. While natural selection sometimes explains the survival of the fittest, it does not explain the origin of the fittest. Today, some people think that because natural selection occurs, evolution must be correct. Actually, natural selection prevents major evolutionary changes.

6. Mutations
Mutations are the only known means by which new genetic material becomes available for evolution. Rarely, if ever, is a mutation beneficial to an organism in its natural environment. Almost all observable mutations are harmful; some are meaningless; many are lethal. No known mutation has ever produced a form of life having greater complexity and viability than its ancestors.

7. Fruit Flies
A century of fruit fly experiments, involving 3,000 consecutive generations, gives absolutely no basis for believing that any natural or artificial process can cause an increase in complexity and viability. No clear genetic improvement has ever been observed in any form of life, despite the many unnatural efforts to increase mutation rates.

8. Complex Molecules and Organs
Many molecules necessary for life, such as DNA, RNA, and proteins, are so incredibly complex that claims they evolved are questionable. Furthermore, those claims lack experimental support.

There is no reason to believe that mutations or any natural process could ever produce any new organs—especially those as complex as the eye, the ear, or the brain. For example, an adult human brain contains over 1014 (a hundred thousand billion) electrical connections, more than all the electrical connections in all the electrical appliances in the world. The human heart, a ten-ounce pump that will operate without maintenance or lubrication for about 75 years, is another engineering marvel.

9. Fully-Developed Organs
All species appear fully developed, not partially developed. They show design. There are no examples of half-developed feathers, eyes, skin, tubes (arteries, veins, intestines, etc.), or any of thousands of other vital organs. Tubes that are not 100% complete are a liability; so are partially developed organs and some body parts. For example, if a leg of a reptile were to evolve into a wing of a bird, it would become a bad leg long before it became a good wing.

10. Distinct Types
If evolution happened, one would expect to see gradual transitions among many living things. For example, variations of dogs might blend in with variations of cats. Actually, some animals, such as the duckbilled platypus, have organs totally unrelated to their alleged evolutionary ancestors. The platypus has fur, is warm-blooded, and suckles its young as do mammals. It lays leathery eggs, has a single ventral opening (for elimination, mating, and birth), and has claws and a shoulder girdle as most reptiles do. The platypus can detect electrical currents (AC and DC) as some fish can, and has a bill somewhat like a duck—a bird. It has webbed forefeet like an otter, a flat tail like a beaver, and the male can inject poisonous venom like a pit viper. Such “patchwork” animals and plants, called mosaics, have no logical place on the evolutionary tree.

There is no direct evidence that any major group of animals or plants arose from any other major group.a Species are observed only going out of existence (extinctions), never coming into existence.

11. Altruism
Humans and many animals will endanger or even sacrifice their lives to save another—sometimes the life of another species.a Natural selection, which evolutionists say selects individual characteristics, should rapidly eliminate altruistic (self-sacrificing) “individuals.” How could such risky, costly behavior ever be inherited, because its possession tends to prevent the altruistic “individual” from passing on its genes for altruism? If evolution were correct, selfish behavior should have completely eliminated unselfish behavior. Furthermore, cheating and aggression should have “weeded out” cooperation. Altruism contradicts evolution.

12. Extraterrestrial Life?
No verified form of life which originated outside of earth has ever been observed. If life evolved on earth, one would expect that the elaborate experiments sent to the Moon and Mars would have detected at least simple forms of life (such as microbes) that differ in some respects from life on earth.

13. Language
Children as young as seven months can understand and learn grammatical rules. Furthermore, studies of 36 documented cases of children raised without human contact (feral children) show that language is learned only from other humans; humans do not automatically speak. So the first humans must have been endowed with a language ability. There is no evidence language evolved.

Nonhumans communicate, but not with language. True language requires both vocabulary and grammar. With great effort, human trainers have taught some chimpanzees and gorillas to recognize a few hundred spoken words, to point to up to 200 symbols, and to make limited hand signs. These impressive feats are sometimes exaggerated by editing the animals’ successes on film. (Some early demonstrations were flawed by the trainer’s hidden promptings.)

Wild apes have not shown these vocabulary skills, and trained apes do not pass their vocabulary on to others. When a trained animal dies, so does the trainer’s investment. Also, trained apes have essentially no grammatical ability. Only with grammar can a few words express many ideas. No known evidence shows that language exists or evolves in nonhumans, but all known human groups have language.

Furthermore, only humans have different modes of language: speaking/hearing, writing/reading, signing, touch (as with braille), and tapping (as with Morse code or tap-codes used by prisoners). When one mode is prevented, as with the loss of hearing, others can be used.

If language evolved, the earliest languages should be the simplest. But language studies show that the more ancient the language (for example: Latin, 200 B.C.; Greek, 800 B.C.; and Vedic Sanskrit, 1500 B.C.), the more complex it is with respect to syntax, case, gender, mood, voice, tense, verb form, and inflection. The best evidence indicates that languages devolve; that is, they become simpler instead of more complex. Most linguists reject the idea that simple languages evolve into complex languages.

If humans evolved, then so did language. Because all available evidence indicates that language did not evolve, then humans probably did not evolve.

14. Speech
Speech is uniquely human. Humans have both a “prewired” brain capable of learning and conveying abstract ideas, and the physical anatomy (mouth, throat, tongue, larynx, etc.) to produce a wide range of sounds. Only a few animals can approximate some human sounds.

Because the human larynx is low in the neck, a long air column lies above the vocal cords. This helps make vowel sounds. Apes cannot make clear vowel sounds, because they lack this long air column. The back of the human tongue, extending deep into the neck, modulates the air flow to produce consonant sounds. Apes have flat, horizontal tongues, incapable of making consonant sounds.

Even if an ape could evolve all the physical equipment for speech, that equipment would be useless without a “prewired” brain for learning language skills, especially grammar and vocabulary.

15. Codes, Programs, and Information
In our experience, codes are produced only by intelligence, not by natural processes or chance. A code is a set of rules for converting information from one useful form to another. Examples include Morse code and braille. Code makers must simultaneously understand at least two ways of representing information and then establish the rules for converting from one to the other and back again.

The genetic material that controls the physical processes of life is coded information. Also coded are complex and completely different functions: the transmission, translation, correction, and duplication systems, without which the genetic material would be useless, and life would cease. It seems most reasonable that the genetic code, the accompanying transmission, translation, correction, and duplication systems were produced simultaneously in each living organism by an extremely high intelligence.

Likewise, no natural process has ever been observed to produce a program. A program is a planned sequence of steps to accomplish some goal. Computer programs are common examples. Because programs require foresight, they are not produced by chance or natural processes. The information stored in the genetic material of all life is a complex program. Therefore, it appears that an unfathomable intelligence created these genetic programs.

Life contains matter, energy, and information. All isolated systems, including living organisms, have specific, but perishable, amounts of information. No isolated system has ever been shown to increase its information content significantly. Nor do natural processes increase information; they destroy it. Only outside intelligence can significantly increase the information content of an otherwise isolated system. All scientific observations are consistent with this generalization, which has three corollaries:

Macroevolution cannot occur.
Outside intelligence was involved in the creation of the universe and all forms of life.
Life could not result from a “big bang.”

16. Compatible Senders and Receivers
As explained above, only intelligence creates codes, programs, and information (CP&I). Each involves senders and receivers. Senders and receivers can be people, animals, plants, organs, cells, or some molecules. (The DNA molecule is a prolific sender.) The CP&I in a message must be understandable and sufficiently beneficial to both sender and receiver, otherwise the effort expended in transmitting and receiving messages (written, chemical, electrical, magnetic, visual, and auditory) will be wasted.

Consider the astronomical number of links (message channels) that exist between potential senders and receivers: from the cellular level to complete organisms, from bananas to bacteria to babies, and across all of time since life began. All must have compatible understandings (CP&I) and equipment (matter and energy). Designing compatibilities of this magnitude requires one or more superintelligences. Furthermore, these superintelligence(s) must completely understand how matter and energy behave over time. In other words, the superintelligence(s) must have made, or at least mastered, the laws of chemistry and physics wherever senders and receivers are found. The simplest, most parsimonious way to integrate all of life is for there to be only one superintelligence.

Also, the sending and receiving equipment, including its energy sources, must be in place and functional before communication begins. But the preexisting equipment provides no benefit until useful messages begin arriving. Therefore, intelligent foresight (planning) is mandatory—something nature cannot do.

Answer 2

Perhaps it is because there are numerous tests and scientific data that outright proves microevolution. There is evidence, basically, that has occured in laboratories that microevolution exists. Therefore, to deny what has definately been proven would seem, well, ignorant. However, no scientific tests have bothered to continue them on to macroevolution, therefore macroevolution is based upon rational conclusions based upon the evidence that such a thing could occur. I believe that if scientific tests went far enough to show that macroevolution does exist, then it would be very difficult to dismiss the test results and scientific data that would be collected not only by the original test, but by the other tests that are done to confirm the first test. So far, though, all scientific tests just seem to prove that microevolution exists. That's as far as the facts themselves go. Not sure why people who believe in God whom they cannot see would thus need to see proof of macroevolution to accept it.

And I think we should really stop using the phrase from monkey to man because really, according to science, there is a lot of other "species" in between the monkey and the man (each of them has a name). I think such statements oversimplify the evolutionary process that occured.

Otherwise, yes I think you did answer your own question, but it was definately a good one.

Answer 3

Micro- and macroevolution at the on the spot are not completely differenct techniques, yet they don't seem to be an same element. Creationists create a pretend dichotomy, in which their definitions of micro vs. macroevolution are actual techniques which all of us understand to be one made from the different. What they outline as macroevolution is the ladder, microevolution would the rungs, and the adhesive aspects are an keeping apart ingredient and the addition of latest genetic assistance (which they deny can take position). they need to declare "macroevolution hasn't been observed," speciation, which they call macroevolution, has, surely, been observed. So, the purely different element they could do is in simple terms pretend they did not listen and save denying that all of us understand for a incontrovertible actuality that speciation takes position. they in simple terms refuse to believe that speciation can take position on a microscopic factor-- they nonetheless call call that version.

Answer 4

Well, according to one book I've read, although small evolutionary steps can be made, the differences between species are too large and the intermediate organisms in between would not be stable enough to survive. This is more like believing in adaptation, not evolution, in my opinion.

In any case, if you're a true Christian, the only way to believe in evolution is to believe in microevolution, because macroevolution refutes the bible. Yet evolution is so widely accepted that they have to try and find a way to make evolution agree with their religion.

Answer 5

Because you can see and prove microevolution, so it's really hard for them not to believe in it.