Evolution

Not only do young earth creation scientists have plenty of evidence, much of the evidence they have comes from accepted mainstream science. Thus if it is contended (although totally without any examples) that creation scientists do not have proofs, then one is simply ignoring mainstream science, much of which is produced by scientists who believe in evolution. Mainstream science (in terms of the evidence not the personal beliefs of evolutionists against the evidence) does not support evolutionary beliefs no matter how many times it is stated 'evolution is a proven fact.' Saying this and it actually being so are two totally different things.

The evidence which YEC's have is both positive and negative. Positive, in the sense that the evidence points positively to a creator. Negative, in that there is plenty of evidence which refutes the errors of evolution. It is also comprehensive as well in that it covers every conceivable area of scientific endeavor, including evidence relating to the age of the earth and universe, since the age issue is a key difference in ideology between the two positions.

Some Evidence for the Young-Earth Creationist Position:

Since this is a big issue it is difficult to summarize in a small section. However here are some of the key arguments:

Laws of Science (with no known exception) such as the Law of biogenesis (life only comes from life) and the Second Law of Thermodynamics (the law of entropy) do not support evolution.

The fossil record does not demonstrate the millions of intermediate forms but instead 'stasis'. That is organisms stay the same over alleged multi millions of years of evolutionary time, even including into species that are still living today.

Genetics also shows that there are definite limits to change. No known mechamism exists to create new genetic information for one organism to change into something else. Mutations demonstrate a 'downhill' path and natural selection works on existing genetic information and cannot add new genetic instructions. This all points to the existence of an all-wise creator who not only created the information but the means by which the information could be understood and translated into characteristics of an organism.

Biochemistry demonstrates the impossibility of life, even the simplest form of life coming from non-living chemicals. Life is a creation not an accident.

Summary:

These arguments although highly simplified are all scientifically tenable.

Rebuttal of previous points

• "Evolution contradicts the second law" - this is complete nonsense. The second law says that in closed systems, entropy increases. First and foremost, biological systems and our planet are not closed at all. Huge amounts of energy go in and out every second. Even assuming that the solar system is a closed system, this says nothing about a subsystem of it; the local decrease in entropy in your body is more than made up by the later increase as energy is released and by the mere functioning of the sun. Even besides all that, evolution is just one aspect of life; this argument can only say that either no life is possible, or that all life must be allowed. It says nothing about one specific mechanism of life.
• The "law of biogenesis" - is not a law as so faithfully stated. The Miller-Urey experiment shows that it is perfectly possible to develop self-replicating molecules from complex organic molecules from simple organic molecules from simple compounds and elements, perfectly within the environment known to have existed during and around the time of life's first appearances.
• "Fossils records show stasis, not evolution" - as amatter of fact, they show both. The original hypothesis of gradual but minute change has been replaced by the "punctuated equilibirium" theory, which specifically states that organisms remain quite similar for huge periods of time, then are affected by some circumstance which forces natural selection on a massive scale and in a comparatively short period of time (e.g. a few million years after a stable period of 20 million years).
• Mutations - are the obvious mechanism of new information formation, which is denied to exist. Information is altered from what it originally was during the phases of replication and of "zipping up". As quite plainly stated in many science textbooks, mutations are "often harmless, sometimes lethal, but also sometimes beneificial". All of these imply the key word "different" - different from what the would have, should have and could have been.
• "God did it" - is a completely and inherently unscientific claim, which simply demonstrates how the position of creationists is based on religious (and often political) motives, not scientific ones.

Summary: These arguments are false. Their supporters make stuff up to appear correct.

There have been quite a number of these made over the years. They can be classified into a number of broad categories, although it must be pointed out at the outset that most people who made these comments were evolutionists and remained evolutionists. It is well said that questioning things is part of science. This must also include acknowledging problems with existing theories where they do not match scientific reality:

Regarding the Fossil Record:

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."

Stephen Jay Gould (then Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), 'Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?' Paleobiology, vol. 6(1), January 1980, p.127.

"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt."

Gould, ibid. 'The return of hopeful monsters'. Natural History, vol. LXXXXVI(6), June-July 1977, p.24.

"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of "seeing" evolution, it has provided some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of "gaps" in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them.(emphasis added) The gaps must therefore be a contingent feature of the record."

David B. Kitts, PhD (zoology), (School of Geology and Geophysics, Department of the History of Science, University of Oklahoma, Norman Oklahoma, USA) 'Paleontology and evolutionary theory'. Evolution. vol.28, September 1974, p.467

"Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information - what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistc. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does(emphasis in the original) show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection. Also the major extinctions such as those of the dinoaaurs and trilobites are still very puzzling."

Dr David M. Raup (Curator of Geology, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago), 'Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology'. Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin,vol.50(1), January 1979,p.25.

Regarding Evolution Generally -Has it helped the progress of Science.?

"Darwin's book - On the Origin of Species - I find quite unsatisfactory: it says nothing about the origin of species; it is written very tentatively, with a special chapter on "Difficulties on theory"; and it includes a great deal of discussion on why evidence for natural selection does not exist in the fossil record"...

"As a scientist I am not happy with these ideas. But I find it distasteful for scientists to reject a theory because it does not fit with their preconceived ideas."

H. Lipson, FRS (Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK), 'Origin of species', in 'Letters', New Scientist, 14 May 1981, p.452.

Note: In this case the preconceived ideas get the nod ahead of what the facts of science show.

'There was little doubt that the star intellectual turn of last week's British Association for the Advancement of Science meeting at Salford was Dr. John Durant, a youthful lecturer from University College Swansea. Giving the Darwin lecture to one of the biggest audiences of the week, Durant put forward an audacious theory - that Darwin's evolutionary explanation of the origins of man has been transformed into a modern myth, to the detriment of science and social progress.'...

Durant concludes that the secular myths of evolution have had "a damaging effect on scientific research", leading to "distortion, to needless controversy, and to gross misuse of science".'

Dr John Durant (University College Swansea, Wales) as quoted in 'How Evolution became a scientific myth', New Scientist, 11 September 1980, p765.

'Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.'

Prof. Loius Bounoure (Former President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg and Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, later Director of Research at the French National Centre of Scientific Research), as quoted in The Advocate, Thursday 8 March 1984, p.17.

Regarding Mutations as a Mechanism for Evolution

'Some contemporary biologists, as soon as they observe a mutation, talk about evolution. They are implicitly supporting the following syllogism: mutations are the only evolutionary variations, all living beings undergo mutations, therefore all living things evolve.

This logical scheme is, however, unacceptable:first, because its major premise is neither obvious nor general; second, because its conclusion does not agree with the facts. No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.

We add that it would be all too easy to object that mutations have no evolutionary effect because they are eliminated by natural selection. Lethal mutations (the worst kind) are effectively eliminated, but others persist as alleles. The human soecies provides a great many examples of this, e.g., the color of the eyes, the shape of the auricle, dermatoglyphics, the color and texture of the hair, the pigmentation of the skin. Mutants are present within every population, from bacteria to man. There can be no doubt about it. But for the evolutionist, the essential lies elsewhere: in the fact that mutations do not coincide with evolution.' (Emphasis added)

Pierre-Paul Grasse (University of Paris and past-President, French Academie des Sciences) in Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977,p.88

Regarding the Origin of Genetic Material

'The origin of the genetic code is the most baffling aspect of the problem of the origins of life and a major conceptual or experimental breakthrough may be needed before we can make any substantial progress.'

Dr. Leslie Orgel (biochemist at the Salk Institute, California), Darwinism at the very beginning of life'. New Scientist, 15 April 1982, p.151.

'The evolution of the genetic machinery is the step for which there are no laboratory models; hence one can speculate endlessly, unfettered by inconvenient facts.'....

'We can only imagine what probably existed, and our imagination so far has not been very helpful.'

Richard E. Dickerson, Ph.D (physical chemistry)(Professor, California Institute of Technology), 'Chemical evolution and the origin of life'. Scientific American, vol.239(3), September 1978, pp.77 and 78

Regarding Dating and Dating Methods

'The age of our globe is presently thought to be some 4.5 billion years, based on radiodecay rates of uranium and thorium. Such "confirmation" may be short-lived as nature is not to be discovered quite so easily. There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radiodecay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences.

And this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic to a close may not be 65 million years ago but, rather, within the age and memory of man.'

Frederic B. Jueneman, FAIC, 'Secular catastrophism'. Industrial Research and Development, June 1982, p.21.

'All the above methods for dating the age of the earth, its various strata, and its fossils are questionable because the rates are likely to have fluctuated widely over earth history. A method that appears to have much greater reliability for determining absolute ages of rocks is that of radiometricdating.'....

'It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different(sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological "clock". The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and evolutionists....".

William D. Stansfield, Ph.D.(animal breeding)(Instructor of Biology, California Polytechnic State University)in The Science of Evolution, Macmillan, New York, 1977,pp.82 and 84.

'In conventional interpretation of K-Ar age data, it is common to discard ages which are substantially too high or to low compared with the rest of the group or with other available data such as the geologic time scale. The discrepancies between the rejected and the accepted are arbitrarily attributed to excess or loss of argon. '

A. Hayatsu(Department of Geophysics, University of Western Ontario, Canada), 'K-Ar isochron age of the North Mountain Basalt, Nova Scotia'. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, vol. 16, 1979,p.974.

'Thus, if one believes that the derived ages in particular instances are in gross disagreement with established facts of field geology, he must conjure up geological processes that could cause anomalous or altered argon contents of the minerals.'

Prof. J. F. Evernden (Department of Geology, University of California, Berkeley, USA) and Dr. John R. Richards (Research School of Earth Sciences, Australian National University, Canberra),'Potassium-argon ages in eastern Australia'. Journal of the Geological Society of Australia, vol. 9(1), 1962,p.3.

Regarding the rubidium/strontium (Rb/Sr) method:

'These results indicate that even total-rock systems may be open during metamorphism and may have their isotopic systems changed, making it impossible to determine their geologic age.'

Prof. Gunter Faure (Department of Geology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, USA) and Prof. James L. Powell (Department of Geology,Oberlin College,Ohio, USA) in Strontium Isotope Geology, Springer-Verlag, Berlin and New York, 1972, p.102.

'One serious consequence of the mantle isochron model is that crystallization ages determined on basic igneous rocks by the Rb-Sr whole rock technique can be greater than the true age by many hundreds of millions of years. This problem of inherited age is more serious for younger rocks, and there are well-documented instances of conflicts between stratigraphic age and Rb-Sr age in the literature.'

Dr. C. Brooks (Professor of Geology, University of Montreal, Quebec, Canada), Dr. D. E. James (Staff Member in geophysics and geochemistry, Carnegie Institution of Washington D.C., USA) and Dr. S. R. Hart (Professor of Geochemistry, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge,USA), 'Ancient lithosphere: its role in young continental vulcanism'. Science,vol. 193, 17 September 1976, p.1093.

Regarding the Origin of Life Itself

In order for evolution to take place life had to arise spontaneously without divine intervention. Theistic evolutionists of course propose that God started it all and then used evolution. This is not what mainstream science proposes since even the idea of any kind of supernatural intervention is explicitly excluded. The following are from the mainstream scientific view.

'Prebiotic soup is easy to obtain. We must next explain how a prebiotic soup of organic molecules, including amino acids and the organic constituents of nucleotides evolved into a self replicating organism. While some suggestive evidence has been obtained, I must admit that attempts to reconstruct this evolutionary process are extremely tentative.'

Dr. Leslie Orgel (biochemist at the Salk Institute, California), 'Darwinism at the very begining of life'. New Scientist, 15 April 1982, p.150.

'However, the macromolecule-to-cell transition is a jump of fantastic dimensions, which lies beyond the range testable hypothesis. In this area all is conjecture. The available facts do not provide a basis for postulating that cells arose on this planet.*

This is not to say that some paraphysical forces were at work. We simply wish to point out the fact that there is no scientific evidence. The physicist has learned to avoid trying to specify when time began and when matter was created, except within the framework of frank speculation. The origin of the precursor cell appears to fall into the same category of unknowables.'

*To postulate that life arose elsewhere in the universe and was then brought to earth in some manner would be merely begging the question; we should then ask how life arose wherever it may have done so originally.

David E. Green (Institute for Enzyme Research, Iniversity of Wisconsin, Madison, USA) and Robert F. Goldberger (National Institute of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA), Molecular Insights into the Living Process, Academic Press, New York, 1967, pp. 406-407.

The microbiologist Michael J. Behe is a believer in evolution, however some of his statements question evolution. In Darwin's Black Box, he repeatedly and clearly states that he accepts the scientifically determined age of the Earth, and repeatedly and clearly states that evolution by natural selection may be correct, at least for "micro-evolution". He defines micro-evolution broadly, to include the evolution of species, but not of complex biological systems.

Behe stated that he could not see how complex microbiological systems could have resulted from gradual improvement, as proposed by Charles Darwin. He went on to argue that, although there is no proof for creation, it appears to offer a better explanation for such complex biological systems. Even if he prefers this explanation, he believes that design is difficult to prove.

Although Behe has questioned evolution, he should not be regarded as "anti-evolution". In an attempt to harmonise creationism with evolution, Behe puts forward the hypothesis that the creator may have placed the genes necessary for complex systems in the earliest primitive species (but not turned on), ready to be switched on in descendant species that finally needed those systems (Chapter 10, "Questions about Design"). Now, in the twenty-first century, scientists are in a position to use genome mapping to test this hypothesis, in ways Behe may not have anticipated in the early 1990s.

Behe stated (P230): "There is another conceivable sense in which evolution might be said to go in sudden jerks, but which is also not the sense being proposed by Eldredge and Gould, at least in most of their writings. It is conceivable that some of the apparent 'gaps' in the fossil record really do reflect sudden change in a single generation."

It is widely reported that John Durant, as a young scientist, argued that Darwinism was accepted too uncritically. In his later essay, "A Critical-Historical Perspective on the Argument about Evolution and Creation" (Evolution and Creation: A European Perspective edited by Svend Andersen and Arthur Peacocke - 1987), he continued to question the arguments put by both sides:

"I have suggested that much of the argument about evolution and creation arises from the belief that, since these two things are opposed to one another, we must choose between them. This belief is simply false. The theory of evolution by natural selection is not atheistic but rather secular, and there is no necessity for it to be in conflict with, or indeed to make any sort of contact with, the theological doctrine of creation.It remains true that we have come a long way from the days when philosophical, religious and scientific discussions of origins were dominated by the theory of special creation. Today, it is at least possible to distinguish between conventional Darwinian evolutionary biology and that larger evolutionary world-view constructing enterprise that is represented by men like Huxley and Teilhard. For the plain fact is that those who accept the essentially secular terms of Darwinism are free to select amongst a variety of alternative world-views according to their own particular philosophical or religious preferences. In exercising this freedom, of course, people are not making a scientific choice. For Darwinism as such rests upon no distinctive metaphysical or religious propositions; and it offers no distinctive support to any particular world-view, be it pro-Christian, anti-Christian or merely neutral. Rightly conceived, theological questions must be decided on theological grounds, and not upon the territory of the paleontologist or the population geneticist. "

Loren Eiseley, Ph.D

'With the failure of these many efforts science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own:namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.'

Loren Eiseley, PhD.(anthropology), 'The secret of life' in The Immense Journey, Random House, New York, 1957,p.199.

Dr. David Pilbeam

'I know that, at least in paleoanthropology, data are still so sparse that theory heavily influences interpretations. Theories have, in the past, clearly reflected our current ideologies instead of the actual data.'

Dr. David Pilbeam (Physical Anthropologist, Yale University, USA), 'Rearranging our family tree'. Human Nature,June 1978, p.45

Micro-evolution - Change at or below the species level. For example, variation within dogs, bacterial resistance to antibiotics, etc

Macro-evolution - Change above the species level

Macro-evolution is simply the long term accumulation of micro-evolutionary changes.

The best way to view the difference between the two is to view them as perspectives, views from different distances. Evolution is continuous genetic divergence, leading to an ever branching tree - at least, at the genetic level.

Zoom in closely, and one might see a single branch, stretching out, wavering a bit, or even changing direction, as no branch grows completely straight.

Zoom out a bit, and one might see the place where this branch stems from the parent branch, or the place where a new branch branches of from the branch you'd been following.

Zoom out some more, and the pattern begins to become clearer: branches, stemming from branches, stemming from branches, forming an ever expanding tree.

As these zoom-factors are simply perspectives on the way a tree grows, so micro- and macro-evolution are merely perspectives on the way life develops. Micro-evolution is the zoom-factor that encompasses a single species, with no branching-events in scope. Macro-evolution zooms out a little, so that at least one branching event is visible.

Such a point of view is simply untenable, and it denotes a complete misunderstanding of the nature of function. Macroevolution, in all its possible meanings, implies the emergence of new complex functions. A function is not the simplistic sum of a great number of "elementary" sub-functions: sub-functions have to be interfaced and coherently integrated to give a smoothly performing whole. In the same way, macroevolution is not the mere sum of elementary microevolutionary events.

A computer program, for instance, is not the sum of simple instructions. Even if it is composed ultimately of simple instructions, the information-processing capacity of the software depends on the special, complex order of those instructions. You will never obtain a complex computer program by randomly assembling elementary instructions or modules of such instructions.

In the same way, macroevolution cannot be a linear, simple or random accumulation of microevolutionary steps.

Microevolution, in all its known examples (antibiotic resistance, and similar) is made of simple variations, which are selectable for the immediate advantage connected to them. But a new functional protein cannot be built by simple selectable variations, no more than a poem can be created by random variations of single letters, or a software written by a sequence of elementary (bit-like) random variations, each of them improving the "function" of the software.

Function simply does not work that way. Function derives from higher levels of order and connection, which cannot emerge from a random accumulation of micro-variations. As the complexity (number of bits) of the functional sequence increases, the search space increases exponentially, rapidly denying any chance of random exploration of the space itself.

The best answer to this claim, which is little more than an urban legend, is to cite relevant cases. First, textbooks:

Campbell's Biology (4th Ed.) states: "macroevolution: Evolutionary change on a grand scale, encompassing the origin of novel designs, evolutionary trends, adaptive radiation, and mass extinction." [By contrast, this book defines "microevolution as "a change in the gene pool of a population over a succession of generations"]

Futuyma's Evolutionary Biology, in the edition used by a senior member at UD for an upper division College course, states, "In Chapters 23 through 25, we will analyze the principles of MACROEVOLUTION, that is, the origin and diversification of higher taxa." (pg. 447, emphasis in original). [Futuyma contrasts "microevolution" -- "slight, short-term evolutionary changes within species."]

In his 1989 McGraw Hill textbook, Macroevolutionary Dynamics, Niles Eldredge admits that "[m]ost families, orders, classes, and phyla appear rather suddenly in the fossil record, often without anatomically intermediate forms smoothly interlinking evolutionarily derived descendant taxa with their presumed ancestors." (pg. 22.) In Macroevolution: Pattern and Process (Steven M. Stanley, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998 version), we read that, "[t]he known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphological transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid." (pg. 39)

The scientific journal literature also uses the terms "macroevolution" or "microevolution."

In 1980, Roger Lewin reported in Science on a major meeting at the University of Chicago that sought to reconcile biologists' understandings of evolution with the findings of paleontology:

"The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No." (Roger Lewin, "Evolutionary Theory Under Fire," Science, Vol. 210:883-887, Nov. 1980.)

Two years earlier, Robert E. Ricklefs had written in an article in Scienceentitled "Paleontologists confronting macroevolution," contending:

"The punctuated equilibrium model has been widely accepted, not because it has a compelling theoretical basis but because it appears to resolve a dilemma. … apart from its intrinsic circularity (one could argue that speciation can occur only when phyletic change is rapid, not vice versa), the model is more ad hoc explanation than theory, and it rests on shaky ground." (Science, Vol. 199:58-60, Jan. 6, 1978.)

So, if such terms are currently in disfavor, that is clearly because they highlight problems with the Modern Evolutionary theory that it is currently impolitic to draw attention to. In the end, the terms are plainly legitimate and meaningful, as they speak to an obvious and real distinction between (a) the population changes that are directly observationally confirmed, "microevolution," and (b) the major proposed body-plan transformation level changes that are not: "macroevolution."

It is a term separating the different levels of evolution in organisms.

Microevolution refers to evolutionary changes in a single population (not necessarily a species)

Macroevolution takes place on a much larger scale, encompassing such events such as speciation, extinction, and horizontal gene transfer.

It's the same as saying microgravity (that an apple will fall to the ground) and macrogravity (that planets orbit the sun)

Micro- and macroevolution, and micro- and macrogravity are serperated by the same thing, scale.

Answer

In the scientific community, it is just evolution.

Micro/macro came about because of religious debate. It became a necessity for Creationists to allow for minor changes such as that which you see from parent to offspring because these changes are undeniable. Thus micro and macro-evolution were born so they can say that micro-evolution is true (changes from parent to child), but macro evolution is not (gradual change and speciation). So, they deny macro and accept micro, despite having observed both many, many times.

The bottomline is that, macro-evolution is just micro-evolution on a longer timeline, and both are simply evolution.

Google search: observed instances of speciation