Is Micro or Macro Evolution a Fact?
There are
two kinds of evolution. One is change within a particular type of organism; the
other is change from one organism to another. One is micro-evolution or
adaptation: changes in size, color, type of food, type of environment, type of
shelter, length or amount of hair/fur, type of sounds they make, their
particular temperament. The other is Macro-evolution or Darwinian atheistic, or
Theistic Evolution.
Atheists, Agnostics,
and Liberal compromising Christians who believe in man’s speculation over God’s
Word believe in Macro evolution. Most Christians who believe God’s Word
literally believe in Micro-evolution, but NOT macro-evolution.
Micro-evolution
can be demonstrated and observed. It is called breeding, and was used by Darwin
to ’prove’ his speculation was true.
Examples of Micro-Evolution
Notice something odd? What is common for all these variations when considering all the species on earth? These are all caused by man's breeding. Man meddling with nature. None of these are natural. And breeding is not evolution, it is created by man. And intelligent design.
Macro-evolution cannot be observed, so secular scientists claim
micro-evolutionary changes lead to unlimited changes over millions of years. But
they neglect to explain that micro-evolution only causes changes in a specific
kind and has a limit which prevents it from producing offspring. And it is a
loss of genetic information (evolution requires an increase of information)
that causes natural selection to cause it to go extinct, or revert back to the
original kind. Darwin’s Finch produced changes based on the food supply and
weather conditions, then this change reverts back to the original design with
no changes.
Also the
loss of genetic information due to mutations (which are always destructive) slowly
causes the organism to become extinct. To say there are good mutations is like saying an accident caused you to buy a better vehicle, the point is it is based on a creative act in response to a bad event.
Macro-evolution
cannot be observed, so they claim the fossils in the geologic column illustrate
these assumed changes. Once again assuming sedimentary rock forms slowly over
millions of years, another thing that cannot be observed.
What we do
observe is sudden changes in flat layered rock that gives no evidence of being
a surface with valleys, hills and mountains. Then there are the
paraconformaties where supposed millions of years of strata are missing leaving
no evidence that there was a gap here.
Paraconfomities at the Grand Canyon
List of
sedimentary problems that falsifies long ages with proof:
N.D. Newell, in the 1984 issue of the Princeton
University Press, made a very interesting and revealing comment concerning
this paraconformity phenomenon:
"A
puzzling characteristic of the erathem boundaries and of many other major
biostratigraphic boundaries [boundaries between differing fossil
assemblages] is the general lack of physical evidence of subaerial
exposure. Traces of deep leaching, scour, channeling, and residual gravels tend
to be lacking, even where the underlying rocks are cherty limestones (Newell,
1967b). These boundaries are paraconformities that are usually identifiable
only by paleontological [fossil] evidence." (Jeremy: These can be explained by changes in the direction of tidal impacts from the ocean during the worldwide Flood)
Newell noted
in an earlier paper that, "A remarkable aspect of paraconformities in
limestone sequences is general lack of evidence of leaching of the
undersurface. Residual sods and karst (Jeremy: These limestone layers form caves today, proving these strata were always under water during their deposition, which were eroded into caves after the Flood. When the water table dropped below these layers.) surfaces that might be expected to result
from long subaerial exposure are lacking or unrecognized. . . The origin of
paraconformities is uncertain, and I certainly do not have a simple solution to
this problem."
Also,
in a 1981 publication of the Journal Nature, T. H. Van Andel
commented:
"I
was much influenced early in my career by the recognition that two thin coal
seams in Venezuela, separated by a foot of grey clay and deposited in a coastal
swamp, were respectively of Lower Palaeocene and Upper Eocene age. The outcrops
were excellent but even the closest inspection failed to turn up the precise
position of that 15 Myr gap.”
Examples of Unconformaties
Some strata have rough unconformities between them, shows the sediment
was laid down flat, then tilted and eroded and covered by flat sediment.
The worldwide Flood produced the Great Unconformity between the PreFlood tilted granite bedrock, and the flat sedimentary rock above it.
Some flat strata are curved up and down by being compressed
while they were still soft mud, lime, or sand. Some surfaces even have pristine
fossil trackways in them which would be destroyed within hours or days.
Flat strata folded while it was soft sediment which turned to rock within days. And fossil Trackways on surfaces which had to be covered by volcanic ash or mud within hours which hardened into rock within months.
The facts of
sedimentation and fossils falsify this speculation. Paleontology and geology show that the evolutionary lineages
like the horse evolution series are found out of order, and some
extinct ‘horses’ are found together with modern horses and other supposed ancestors. And the speculation of horse evolution goes from the
four toed ‘horse’ to three, to two, to one. This cannot be, evolution does not go from
many to one. Also some of these ‘horses’ are not horses. They were chosen
because they resembled a horse. Also, some ancestors had more ribs than their descendants - this is devolution. Like the dawn horse, Hyrcotherium which is a
hyrax, a rodent not a horse. The San Diego zoo says they are relatives of the
elephant! The hyrax or Rock Cooney not only did not evolve it is still alive.
Horse Evolution due to selective placing of fossils. Notice they used a fossil Rock Cooney and reconstructed it to look horselike.
Rock Cooney, Hyrax or Hyracotherium. It has feet to climb on rocks. And even its teeth are not like a horse.
“There have been an awful lot of stories, some more
imaginative than others, about what the nature of that history [of life] really
is. (Jeremy:
Assuming it happened at all) The most famous example, still on exhibit downstairs,
is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has
been presented as the literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think
that is lamentable, particularly when the people who propose those kinds of
stories may themselves be aware of the speculative nature of some of that
stuff.”
Here is the imaginative reconstruction of horse evolution based on evolutionary assumptions..
Most creation
scientists support Micro-evolution, but not macro-evolution. Those who support
Macro-evolution believe in both, and they use evidence for micro-evolution as
proof of macro-evolution.
Marco-evolution
shows a lack of evidence for a common ancestor for any organism. And missing
links are not the only problem, there should be whole chains of links for everything. But
there are none. Fossils are either almost identical to living things, or they
are extinct. In fact many are larger than today’s organisms, when they should be
smaller. There are no series of organisms outside of artistic drawings based on
evolutionary imagination picked at random from similar appearing organisms and
faith in the goddess Mother Nature and Cronos the Pagan god of time.
The
speculation of natural scientists has been proven false. And my research
supports the conclusion that creation scientists’ belief in Micro-evolution is
also false. There is no common ancestor for any organism for Macro-evolution or Micro-evolution in nature. The only Micro-evolution that has occurred was by
man’s breeding, by mixing different organisms that have similar genetics. Some of
these produce offspring that cannot reproduce because they are an un-natural
hybrid!
I became
aware of this Micro-evolution fallacy when I recalled that I had found a Miocene
fossil fan palm leaf and that it was identical to the living palm right down to
the structure of the leaf. Then I thought about all the different kinds of
palms there are. Did all these come from a common ancestor? Then how come the
fossil has not shown any changes? Evolutionists claim many millions of years since
the Miocene. Even creationists know that the Pleistocene was about 4 thousand years
ago. That should be enough time to cause some changes. But no the fan palm is
still a fan palm.
Fan Palm as compared to other palms. Do you think all these came from one kind of palm and spiceated?
Now look at
birds. Do all birds come from one common ancestor? And all the birds today are descendants
of one kind of bird? This would be ridiculous. Birds tend to flock together
with their own kind. Some build nests on the ground, some in trees, some in
holes in rocks, some are carnivorous/scavengers, some are herbivores.
Consider
ants. Did they all come from one common ant and all the different kinds today
were created by speciation? Some ants live in the ground, others live in
mounds, others in wood, some sting, some do not, some invade houses, others do
not, they are different sizes, some are red, some black, some black and red,
some are ringed black and brown. Ants don't mix with other ants. The small black ants attack and kill large red fire ants, they don't mate with them.
. Do they have a common ancestor?
Now let's compare fossil ants in amber (tree sap) found in dinosaur strata. Where is the Macro or Micro evolution?
These ants in amber start during the middle Cretaceous when dinosaurs roamed and are assumed to be 90 million to 50 million years old. Most are found in the last part of the Cretaceous strata. Creationists date this to the Flood in 2348 BC
Comments
Post a Comment