We had the question about the speed of light. But why do Creationists agree with microevolution and disagree with the idea of macroevolution at the same time?

Macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution.

Macroevolution, as I understand, is nothing more than a lot of microevolutions chained together and is fundamentally the same. If you agree with one, how can you disagree with the other?

A good example, why both are the same is for example our own live. If we had pictures of each day in our life, look at one of it, both the picture of the day before and day after would seem to look the same. But if we skip a few years between the pictures, the difference would be remarkable. Altough we have only small changes each day, if we observe a longer timeframe the change is huge. And noone can say at what day we stopped being a baby and are a toddler now or went from adulescent to adult.

Its the same with species, there are a lot of different transitional states, but you can't say where it stopped to be one species and starts to be another. This seems obvious to me, but Creationists disagree with it. What are their arguments?

  • 1
    I think the point is probability. If someone told you they threw two consecutive sixes (with a 6-sided die), you'd believe it. If they told you they threw a thousand consecutive sixes, you wouldn't. Sep 28, 2011 at 12:22
  • 1
    Where did you get your definition of macroevolution? You might try using a normal dictionary for macroevolution and microevolution. You'll probably have a better start that way.
    – Richard
    Sep 28, 2011 at 12:32
  • 1
    @Richard The last sentence of one of the microevolution definitions you referenced states: "The accumulation of many microevolutionary changes results in macroevolution."
    – jimreed
    Sep 28, 2011 at 16:07
  • 3
    @dancek I wouldn't believe 1,000 consecutive sixes, but I would believe collecting 1,000 sixes if every time a die came up six you set it aside (it "survived") and every time it didn't it was re-rolled...and you did this for at least 6,000 rolls.
    – Chelonian
    Sep 28, 2011 at 17:42
  • 1
    @dancek Can you explain what probalility has to do with this question?
    – user301
    Sep 28, 2011 at 17:44

2 Answers 2


Micro-evolution is variation within a kind and macro-evolution is said to result from a lot of micro-evolution, but it is really a change of "kind".

Variations within a kind indicate that all the genetic information is already available within the species, but through isolation of features, certain characteristics become more prominent. With the breeding of dogs, this is what takes place--not the creation of new genetic material, but the isolation and selection of the information that is already there.

In Genesis 1, the phrase "according to their own kind" comes up quite a bit. The word kind, I've heard somewhere, could encompass all members of the dog family, including wolves, coyotes, etc.

Macro-evolution requires new information, a change in the chromosome count (at some point), and is by definition different from variations within a kind. So, macro-evolution is definitely not a bunch of variations within a kind. Macro-evolution demands that it break outside of its own kind. No matter how many variations within a kind occur, with the same chromosome count and isolation or selection of information that exists, no new information is ever created and the chromosome counts never change.

Everything we have ever observed falls into variations within a kind, with no chromosome count change and no new information. Fruit flies may have extra wings, but the information for wings was already there. It was just replicated in the wrong spot. The scientific method of observation and replication confirms that things do reproduce after their own kinds.

Macro-evolution has never been observed. What we do observe is different kinds in the fossil record. The assumption that one kind evolved into another is just that--an assumption. The only evidence is similarity, which is circumstantial evidence at best. Finding the bones of a species only tells us that the species existed. It does not tell us it evolved from another.

Again, all observable, repeatable, scientific experimentation confirms that species reproduce after their own kinds. To blindly accept that species reproduce after other kinds just because other kinds exist is certainly not science.

The creation model says that all kinds were created and reproduce after themselves. If we ask whether or not the evidence fits this model, it seems pretty clear that it does. We see "kinds" reproducing after their own kind all the time. Some variations within a kind go extinct, like the dodo bird and others, but they all reproduce after their own kinds.

The evolution model rests on something that has never been observed despite much experimentation, so it rests on something that is presumed to occur despite science's inability to replicate it. When all experimentation fails to support a theory, it usually results in the discarding of that theory. In the case of evolution, however, the philosophical implications appear to be too significant for that to take place.

  • 2
    Thanks for the answer. Your points are debatable from a scientific view, but debate is not welcomed here. I would like to invite you into the creationism-chat if you would like to discuss those points further. Alternatively I can point to macroevolution#Misuse.
    – user301
    Sep 28, 2011 at 13:07
  • I would love to chat sometime... but I'm at work now. I understand the points are debatable though. I'm currently reading "Why Evolution is True", so I understand the arguments. (I do think that this particular book is very poorly written, though.)
    – Narnian
    Sep 28, 2011 at 13:16
  • 2
    I think Richard Dawkins books do a great job, for example "the greatest show on earth" and "the magic of reality", from which I got the example of comparing evolution with our own live..
    – user301
    Sep 28, 2011 at 13:18
  • yeah... but Dawkins I think gives great acclaim to this book... let me finish this one first. :)
    – Narnian
    Sep 28, 2011 at 13:19
  • 1
    Debate is welcome in chat, not so much in comments.
    – Richard
    Sep 28, 2011 at 13:27

My understanding is that a main facet of the Creationist argument is based on the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. It is stated that entropy poses a huge problem to macro evolution in that all systems over time decay and move from order to disorder. Creationists thus claim that the genetic code of a species will, over time, lose information - not gain information. Therefore, to move from single celled organisms to Human Beings is impossible.

Micro evolution is accepted in the case of natural selection within a species, providing these changes come about by the loss of genetic information. This loss of information, by necessity, has to be beneficial to the survival of said species.

At least, I believe that is the argument.

  • 7
    I have heard this argument before. For anyone interested this blog entry demonstrates why this is incorrect. It's due to a misunderstanding of entropy, in a similar way that some people think star formation violates the 2nd law). Sep 28, 2011 at 11:34
  • @CiscoIPPhone thank you - an excellent read Sep 28, 2011 at 11:58
  • Your understanding of the creationist position is incorrect; only misinformed (and typically lay) people invoke the 2nd law of thermodynamics as an argument against macro evolution; in my experience this argument is not made by scientists who are creationists.
    – user32
    Sep 28, 2011 at 23:39
  • Thanks SM. I answered the question of why and how do creationists etc,etc... Lay creationists, though wrong (probably on many points, as are lay theologians, lay "philosophers" and lay "scientists"), are still Creationists. However, I shall certainly alter my answer to reflect your correction. Do you have a Creationist source that corrects the standpoint on Thermodynamics please? Cheers. :)
    – seraph
    Sep 29, 2011 at 7:29
  • 1
    BTW, also: skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/2929/… Feb 23, 2012 at 14:23