Letter - The difference between micro-, macroevolution


Some folks think people who believe in creation do not believe in evolution. That is not true.

There are two types of evolution — micro for small changes and macro for large changes. Creationists believe in microevolution.

For example, members of the dog family have undergone changes of color, size, etc. such that there are many varieties of dogs. The same can be said for cats, horses and plants.

They may vary within their basic kinds but dogs are still dogs, finches are still finches and wheat remains wheat. This is called microevolution.

But evolutionists claim macroevolution, which calls for change from one basic type into another basic kind. They have run into huge problems trying to prove this.

The problem being there are too many missing links in the fossil records. Unfortunately for the evolutionists there is no good fossil evidence showing a gradual divergence over long ages to produce organisms with new body types.

It is not that there are no transitional forms. Rather, there should be huge numbers of those fossils. If, as evolutionists claim, all species were gradually formed from a common single cell the transitional forms should clearly dominate linking all species together making a single evolutionary tree. Definitely this is not the case.

The dinosaur is a good example of this. Since every living thing on the Earth supposedly evolved from a “single naked replicating molecule,” according to the book “Why Evolution is True” by Jerry Coyne, Ph.D, and all this was a slow process taking billions of years there should be an abundance of fossil precursors for the dinosaurs.

These fossils should be in display in the same museums as the dinosaurs themselves. But there are none. If you doubt this just ask for them to be shown. And if you do not live near one of those museums you can ask one of the evolutionists where one should go to view them.

One of the things that impressed me as I read Coyne’s book was the number of assertions and assumptions that were made.

Words such as “perhaps,” “maybe” etc. It is crucial that it be recognized that assertions and assumptions do not constitute scientific proof.

Donald Casebolt

Walla Walla


chicoli 1 year, 3 months ago

Well, I suspect you don't believe in macroevolution (whatever this is) but PERHAPS you should as MAYBE is proved to be true in the future. Seriously, I understand what you're trying to say. As a young lad I used to be a very unsecured person, but now as an old man, I'm not too sure I ever was.


NewInWW 1 year, 3 months ago

If the crux of your argument is the absence of pre-dinosaur fossils, you've got a problem. A search for "pre-dinosaur fossils" (I used Google) quickly produces results ranging from bacteria to large carnivores.


Sign in to comment

Click here to sign in