More Evidence Part II: Macroevolution

Macroevolution is “Evolution Proper.” That is, Macroevolution is what we usually think of when we here the word “Evolution. As defined by the Microsoft Word Dictionary, Macroevolution is: “theorized large-scale evolution: evolution theorized to occur over a long period of time, producing major changes in species and other taxonomic groups.”
Hypothetical examples of this include the change needed to transform a fish to an amphibian, a rodent to a bat, and an ape to a human. I am restricted to giving hypothetical examples because no actual ones exist. At best, the evidence for Macroevolution is weak or lacking altogether. At worst, the evidence is totally against it.
But before moving into that evidence, I want to mention a couple of things about Macroevolution: Firstly, Macroevolution is an extrapolation of Microevolution. The theory is that if minor changes can occur over short periods of time, major changes can occur over long periods of time. In general, extrapolations are bad math and bad science. They start with the evidence, but then make speculations that go far beyond what can be tested by the evidence. Secondly, when Macroevolution was first theorized, this extrapolation was excusable. Back then, the fields of paleontology, microbiology, and genetics were largely unexplored. Scientists believed that, as they researched these new fields, the data they found would bear out their theory. But now, over 150 years later, this sort of extrapolation is totally out of place. Since that time, scientific exploration has uncovered data that not only undermines, but totally discredits the validity of Macroevolution as a science.
Here are just a few of the cases against Macroevolution:
Irreducible Complexity
In my last article, Let The Evidence Decide, I talked a little about Irreducible Complexity. I won’t repeat it all now, but I do want to add one note. As one of my examples of irreducibly complex systems, I mentioned the ATP Synthase Motor. What I neglected to mention at the time was that this little machine happens to be necessary for all life on earth. It can be found in all cells, and there is no way of converting ADP to ATP (sugar to energy) without it. To reiterate, this motor is an irreducibly complex system, that is, it must have arisen all at once or not at all. The ATP Synthase Motor, without which no life could exist on this planet, could not exist itself under the conditions of Macroevolution.
The Fossil Record
For over 150 years, paleontologists have been searching for what they call “transitional fossils.” After all, if evolution really happened, the fossil record should document the slow change from one kind of creature into another with lots of intermediate creatures in between. However, not one such “missing link” fossil has been uncovered in a century and a half of digging. In addition the geological column, which has been used for years as “proof” for the Theory of Evolution doesn’t even exist in its complete form. It is a composite of strata from all over the world arranged in the right order to fit the theory. But even if such a column did exist, would it really serve as hard proof for Macroevolution? Not at all. Think about it for a moment. The geological column displays simple life forms like shells at the bottom, followed by fish, then reptiles, birds, and rodents, with the larger mammals at the top. But isn’t this what we would expect from looking at the ecology of the world today? Where do shells live? At the bottom of the ocean! Without transitional fossils, the geological column (fragmented as it is) proves nothing.
Convergent Evolution
Macroevolution requires a phenomenon called “Convergent Evolution.” This is where the same organ must have evolved several different times in several different places. For example, insects, flying reptiles, birds, and bats are all supposed to have evolved wings. They are on different branches of the Evolutionary Tree, so, even according to evolutionists, they could not have evolved from a common winged ancestor. Therefore, they must all have evolved the same appendage separately. Considering the complexity of the wing, it is improbable enough that a wing could have evolved even once. But to have arisen four different times in four different places is even more impossible.
Argument from Ignorance
In studying biology, Evolutionary scientists frequently make the assumption that if an organ appears useless, it is evidence for a chaotic, unintelligent evolutionary process. This assumption has spilled over into the medical field too. For many years, doctors viewed any organ in the body without a known function as a junk. They called them vestigial organs, “leftovers” from Evolution. The tonsils are a perfect example. Doctors used to remove the tonsils at the slightest infection because they were supposedly useless anyway. However, it is now known that the tonsils are a vital part of the immune system. The same thing happened with so called “junk” DNA. Once, considered trash left over from the evolutionary process, this DNA turns out to be critically important. Another example, scientists once called the retina of the human eye “badly engineered” because the blood vessels run in front of the light detecting element instead of behind it. What they did not know at the time was that this design protects the retina from exposure to ultraviolet rays. In short, if the light detecting element were in front of the blood vessels instead of behind them, we would all go blind. As you can see from these examples, the assumption that because something seems useless it must be evidence for a clumsy evolutionary process is a faulty one. This is an argument from ignorance, not from knowledge.
Embryos
Public school science textbooks usually include an embryo development chart in the chapter discussing evolution. This convenient little chart displays drawings of fish, frog, reptile, bird, pig, and human embryos side by side. The purpose is to compare the embryos (which look very similar in the sketches) and draw students to conclude that the similarity is due to evolution from a common ancestor. But for many years, these drawings have been publicly exposed as frauds. Ultrasound images now available of these embryos reveal the extent of this fraud. When compared at the same stage of development, the embryos look nothing alike. Apart from discrediting the Similarity Argument (which is internally inconsistent to begin with- see Convergent Evolution), this kind of fraud brings the entire Evolutionary Theory into question. If evolution were truly as well proven as scientists would like us to believe, why the need to resort to deception? And by the way, although this fraud is now public knowledge, the drawings are still used in public school teaching texts.
Chemical Evolution and the Miller-Urey Failure
Totally apart from these other problems, the biggest problem for Evolution has always been the beginning of life itself. How did dead matter suddenly give rise to living matter? Evolutionists have never been able either to repeat this phenomenon, or give a convincing scientific argument for how it could have occurred. The closest they have ever gotten is the Miller-Urey Experiment. This 50 year old experiment produced a few amino acids (the most basic of all the building blocks of life) and a lot of chemical junk. The experiment failed to generate any living matter. In all the repeat experiments that have been performed since then, nothing better than amino acids has ever been produced, not even a single protein. If educated scientists cannot create a single protein in a controlled laboratory setting, how are we to believe that random chance could give rise to a living cell (which is a thousand times more complex than a protein) in the violent atmosphere of the early earth? Such expectations exceed the bounds of scientific reason, verging on religious faith.
Wrapping up our examination of Macroevolution, it seems fair to say that there is little to no evidence to support this theory and a lot of problems stacked up against it. Given, I have not been able to cover every point for or against Macroevolution in this short article, but the picture I have presented is, I believe, characteristic of the whole. Thus far, the only factual evidence I have found to support Macroevolution is its connection to Microevolution. However, this connection is weak, based only on a extrapolation that has not been born out by successive research. So as it stands, Microevolution, which does not conflict with the Creationist Model, is an observable science. And Macroevolution, the antithesis of Creationism, remains a theory and nothing more.

More Evidence Part I: Microevolution

While we are still on the topic of evidence, let’s take a look at some of the arguments Evolutionists use to support their theory. The evidence given for Evolution falls into two categories: Microevolution and Macroevolution.
Microevolution, as defined by the Microsoft Word Dictionary is: “limited change: minor change within a species or small group of organisms, usually within a short period of time.”
Examples of this include the variation of beak-shapes Darwin observed in the finches on Galapagos, the size of horses, and the changes between wolves in the wild and domesticated dogs. The evidence for Microevolution is very strong- it has been well documented and we can see it at work today. This is real science.
So what does that mean? Has the scientific “fact” of Microevolution refuted the existence of God and the validity of Scripture? Not at all. Did you know that Microevolution is just another name for something referenced in Scripture? Genesis 1:20-26 speaks again and again of how God created all living creatures “according to their kinds.” A “kind” would have been on the order of a family or genus on the classification pyramid- a group that could interbreed and reproduce, with room for variation and speciation due to things like gene recombinations, environmental factors, and minor mutations. Notice the limits of Microevolution- “minor change within a species or small group of organisms.” So what modern scientists have termed “Microevolution” can also simply be called “variation within kinds.”
Far from refuting Creationism, Microevolution supports the Creationist Model just as well if not better than the Darwinist one. I say “if not better” because where as Darwinism grew out of the discovery of Microevolution, Creationism existed before Microevolution. The discovery only reaffirmed something stated in scripture all along.
Now let’s take a look at the second category of evidence.