Small biological changes don't prove
evolution.
Creationology for beginners.
Download the
4-part course for viewing at your leisure!
The Creation
Tips classroom.
Clear, short answers on creation and evolution.
Creationology for beginners Lesson 4.
Read the lessons on-screen or download the whole file (see
left).
Small changes don’t prove evolution!
When you ask evolutionists for their favorite evidence for evolution, you will often get one of these replies:
- All dogs have evolved from an ancient type of wolf. People have bred dogs as diverse as Chihuahuas and Great Danes in a short time. If we can see so much variation occur in a short period, it is surely easy to imagine that many evolutionary changes would occur over huge periods of time.
- Finches have been studied and observed in depth, and it can be seen that their beaks change size and shape. This must be evolution in action. We can actually see these changes take place, so over a much longer time there would be enough variation for creatures to evolve into countless other creatures.
These examples in fact show only “variation within kind.” That is, there may be many types of dogs and wolves, but this does not explain what the first wolf, for instance, evolved from. There may be many variations in beak shapes and sizes in finches, but this does not show that birds such as finches evolved from non-birds, as the evolutionary theory claims.
What do creationologists oppose?
Let's get it clear what creationologists oppose. Even the most dedicated creationist and anti-evolutionist would probably accept that birds' beaks may change size, that parts of animals may change color, that eyes and ears may change shape, and so on. Why? Because there is ample evidence that these can happen within the genetic system each creature possesses.
What creationologists don't accept is that such small, observed changes are evidence of much larger, unobserved changes. Creationists don't accept that these creatures can turn into, or have evolved from, completely different kinds of creatures. The “little” changes are sometimes referred to as “microevolution” (they really don't deserve to be called any kind of evolution, because they are observable, testable, and a normal part of variation of genetic information, but that's what many people call them).
The “big” changes (such as fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, reptile to bird), are referred to as “macroevolution”. The big changes have not been observed, and have not left any indisputably proven sequence of fossils to show that small changes have led up to really “big” changes. There is simply no mechanism to make the big changes happen and be sustained, and they are not a natural feature of genetic alteration.
Whales evolving into whales? Horses into horses?
When evolutionists give you “evidence” for evolution, they usually don't realize how silly that evidence is. They may say that fossils have been found of whales with hip-joints or tiny leg-like appendages, so this proves that whales evolved from a land animal with legs. But what have they said? Whales have evolved from whales! That argument in no way shows that whales have evolved from creatures that are not whales.
They use the same argument for horses and all sorts of other animals. They will say there is a clear sequence of fossils that shows horse evolution. But they say the first in the series was a horse and the last in the series is a horse. So what have they said? Horses have evolved from horses!
This is like lining up a series of clocks, with a small, simple clock at one end and a complex clock at the other end, and then saying that this proves that the last one evolved from the first and that clocks evolved from something else that isn't a clock. The fact is that they are all simply varieties of the “clock family,” and they were made as clocks to start with. They didn't evolve from a non-clock! Likewise, animals that are whales, or horses, or birds, or whatever, in no way prove that these creatures have evolved from, or into, something else.
Human intervention!
Note again the example of the dogs that humans have bred. It took human intelligence and intervention to breed the wide variety of dogs in the world, but this in no way shows that non-intelligence and non-intervention can make the huge changes required to prove macroevolution. After all, humans can make buildings, shoes, and children's toys in hundreds of variations, but this does not prove that those things could occur in nature without human input. In each case, humans have modified and adapted available material for their purpose.
In summary:
Stop and think when you are told that small variations prove major evolution. Dogs being bred from dogs by humans, finch beaks of different shapes and sizes, horses turning into horses, whales turning into whales, and so on, in no way indicates that these creatures evolved from animals essentially different from what they are today.
Previous lessons:
| Main page || Creation Tips || Teen Topics || Crystal Clear Creation || DinosaurCam || Games || News archive || Newsdesk |
Contact us.
Website: www.creationtips.com
Copyright © Creation Tips
Rated
by Internet Content Rating Association