2. Macro vs. Micro - A Battle of "Evolutionary" Proportions

This is the second installment in the Evolution Series. What is macroevolution? What is microevolution? Can either of them be trusted? Does the real world bear evidence of evolution after all?

 

Macro vs. Micro Evolution

 

Evolution Series, Part 2

Essay by Carrie Ott

 

            Ah, I’m back! It’s been a while since my first installment of the series, but I’ve finally rekindled my non-fiction writing spark and figured I’d work on the second essay. Anyway, great to have you reading, and I hope that you enjoy yourself, come out with some new perspectives, and get your brain pumping. That’s what I’m here for! J

 

            Yes, back to the primordial soup of writing on the evolutionary theory (no pun intended). Sit back and relax, it’s a shorter essay and I’m here to inform this time, not to persuade (although I can’t promise that this essay won’t be a little choppy " it’s hard to write so short of an essay). We’ll be talking about the two types of evolution " macroevolution and the much less talked about microevolution.

            As always, let’s define the terms that we’re talking about. First of all, we have macroevolution, “theorized large-scale evolution; evolution theorized to occur over a long period of time, producing major changes in species and other taxonomic groups.” This is the general, modern view of evolution - monkey to man. Large changes capable of turning one animal into another. This is the theory that most evolutionists today hold.[1] If you’ve read any of my first installment in the series, you’ll notice that I find macroevolution to be a preposterous idea, and I’ve come to that conclusion based not only on logical evidence but on the Bible. But moving on, should you hold the same opinion about microevolution?

            In my honest opinion, no. Microevolution is an intriguing and common occurrence that is not only possible but constantly happening. First, here’s the definition of microevolution " “limited change; minor change within a species or small group of organisms, usually within a short period of time.” These are minute changes, not huge fins-becoming-hands changes. Let me give you an example, and I think you’ll realize how much you are exposed to microevolution in your everyday life.

            One of the dogs in my house is a purebred beagle named Sadie. She’s a rabbit hunter, bred to be low to the ground with a keen sense of smell and hearing. She also has a white tip on her tail, which was bred into the beagle breed to allow the hunter to keep track of the dog by finding the bright white “flag” on the tip of her tail. She’s microevolution at work, honestly. I’m sure the ancestors of the beagle were tall, but through extensive breeding, minor changes in the species began to make the beagles shorter. “Minor changes in the species,” right? That’s the definition of microevolution! The white flag on her tail was bred in as well, making it a microevolved trait. Is she still a dog? Yes, therefore it is not macroevolution, because that white tail that was bred in does nothing to make her the “fittest” or make her better so that she can survive. It’s only there to help the hunter. So she’s still a dog, but doesn’t the keener sense of smell still support macroevolution? Okay fine, I’ll let you have that one, but let me give you another example.

           Pugs are great little dogs. Their noses are so ugly (but yet a little cute) smashed up against their faces like that. Did you know that pugs were bred to be that way? They were bred in China and (strangely enough…) they were bred for many generations so that the deep wrinkles of their forehead would form a Chinese symbol (I think it was the symbol for ‘courage’, but I don’t remember for sure). Don’t ask me how you breed for that kind of thing, but my point is that through breeding, a pug’s sense of smell was greatly worsened! So was his healthy breathing, as a matter of fact. Most pugs have a lot of problems with not being able to breathe. Is this still survival of the fittest? That cannot be macroevolution! They’ve become less proficient! It is, however, an example of microevolution, because a change in a breed of dog was made, but it’s still a dog.

            My point in all this has simply been to convey the difference between micro and macro. Despite my trying to withhold it, I was a little persuasive, wasn’t I? Oops, sorry about that! Call me an evolutionist if you’d like, but call me a microevolutionist!

            So, in conclusion, is evolution possible? Yes. However, make sure that you be specific! If I, as a Christian, were to tell evolutionists that I believed in evolution, they’d be ecstatic. Our culture and its people have become brainwashed into thinking that there is only one kind of evolution. Don’t let that be you! Be informed.

            Final score " macroevolution is absurd, but microevolution is completely rational. Now that you’ve heard my rant of the day, feel free to make your choice of worldview.

 

Ah, speaking of worldview, that brings me to the intro of the final installment in the Evolution Series. It will be part 3, concerning the half-way idea of Theistic Evolution. And back to the Bible we’ll go for that one! Coming soon.

---

[1] Notice I say theory, not law. A law is proven with incontrovertible evidence; keep in mind that creation is also only a theory. Neither can be wholly proven.

Author's Note

Sorry, I know it's a little choppy.