The Micro- and Macro-Evolution Errors

Theodosius Dobzhhansky

As you see, the science of genetics has revealed that the variations that Darwin imagined accounted for the origin of species in fact bear no such significance.

Therefore, evolutionist biologists have been forced to distinguish between variation within species and the formation of new species, and to advance two separate concepts regarding them. They gave the name micro-evolution to variation within species, and defined the formation of entirely new species as macro-evolution.

The concept of macro-evolution was first used in 1927 by the Russian biologist Juri'i Filipchenko.184 The idea that micro-evolution could be used as evidence for macro-evolution was proposed by a student of Filipchenko's, Theodosius Dobzhansky, in the 1930s. In his book Genetics and The Origin of Species, one of the basic texts of Darwinism, Dobzhansky suggested that the mechanisms of micro- and macro-evolution were the one and the same.185 This view received wide acceptance from evolutionist circles and has survived down to the present day. Richard Goldschmidt, a Berkeley University geneticist during those years, expressed the erroneous nature of this view: "The facts of microevolution do not suffice for an understanding of macroevolution."186 In fact, what Goldschmidt referred to as micro-evolution was nothing more than variations within species.

We frequently see examples of biological variations in our daily lives. All such instances of variations are simply fluctuations that occur within specific genetic bounds and that have nothing at all to do with evolution.

These two concepts have long appeared in biology textbooks, where a deceptive style is often used. The examples of variation that evolutionist biologists describe as micro-evolution actually have nothing whatsoever to do with the theory of evolution. That's because the theory of evolution maintains that living things can acquire new genetic information through the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection. But as we have already seen, variations can never give rise to any new genetic information and therefore, cannot lead to evolution. Referring to variations as micro-evolution reflects an ideological preference on the part of evolutionist biologists.

The variations that they deliberately refer to as micro-evolution are a simple biological phenomenon, examples of which we encounter frequently in daily life. (Think of all the varieties of cats, dogs, apples, tomatoes, plants and animals you have ever seen.) Macro-evolution, on the other hand, refers to major changes such as that of a dinosaur into a bird, or a bear into a whale. In other words, there is no difference between the claims of macro-evolution and fairy tales in which a frog transforms into a prince.

By using the concept of macro-evolution, evolutionist biologists seek to give the impression that is variations can give rise to brand new living species—and even genera—over the course of time. Indeed, many people who lack a sound knowledge of the subject are taken in by the superficial idea that micro-evolution can become macro-evolution in the long term. One can see many examples of this thinking. Some amateur evolutionists suggest that since the average height of human beings has increased by 2 centimeters (0.78 of an inch) over just the last century, that means that all kinds of evolution can occur over millions of years. But the fact is, as we have already seen, all variations such as increases in stature take place within specific genetic bounds and have nothing to do with evolution.

In fact, even contemporary evolutionist authorities accept that the variations described as micro-evolution cannot give rise to new living classes, or lead to macro-evolution. In a 1996 paper published in the journal Developmental Biology, the evolutionist biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz and Rudolf Raff stated that:

There is no difference between Darwinist claims about "macro-evolution" and fairy tales in which frogs turn into princes..

The Modern Synthesis is a remarkable achievement. However, starting in the 1970s, many biologists began questioning its adequacy in explaining evolution. Genetics might be adequate for explaining microevolution, but micro-evolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern only the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest. As Goodwin (1995) points out, "the origin of species—Darwin's problem—remains unsolved.187

That the variations known as micro-evolution cannot account for the claim of macro-evolution, and cannot explain the origin of species, is also admitted by other evolutionist biologists. The well-known evolutionist paleontologist Roger Lewin set out his conclusion at a four-day symposium attended by 150 evolutionists at the Chicago Museum of Natural History in November 1980:

The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution ... The answer can be given as a clear, No. 188

The evolutionist biologists Fagerstrom, Schuster and Szathmary stated the same thing in an article published in Science magazine in 1996:

Major transitions in evolution—such as the origin of life, the emergence of eukaryotic cells, and the origin of the human capacity for language, to name but a few—could not be farther away from an equilibrium. Also, they cannot be described satisfactorily by established models of microevolution. 189

In short, micro-evolution is a biological phenomenon, and macro-evolution is an unscientific dogma—two entirely distinct concepts. Nonetheless, many evolutionists still believe that these two concepts are one and the same thing, and that micro-evolutionary changes can turn into macro-evolutionary ones over long periods of time.190

Other scientists, however, are aware that such a claim totally conflicts with the picture revealed by scientific findings and the fossil record. Douglas Erwin, from the American Museum of Natural History emphasized this in a paper that appeared in the journal Evolution and Development in 2000.191 According to the American biologists Douglas Erwin and James Valentine, to account for the origin of new physical characteristics with micro-evolutionary changes that are in fact nothing more than variations within species is incompatible with the available evidence.192

The fact is, macro-evolution has never been observed. There is no explanation compatible with reason, logic and science as to how this might take place. Professor of Microbiology Carl Woese expresses his view on the subject: "[T]he term ‘macroevolution' serves more to hide our ignorance than symbolize our understanding."193

Consider the subjects depicted by evolutionists as concrete and observed instances of Darwinism, which they put forward at every opportunity as fundamental proofs of evolution. The Galapagos finches, the Industrial Revolution moths, bacterial resistance to antibiotics, and insects' resistance to DDT immediately come to mind, but it is absolutely misleading to portray these as evidence of evolution. These cases are cases of variations, or micro-evolution, that present no evidence for evolution. The Galapagos finches and the Industrial Revolution moths will be discussed later in this book, where we make it clear that these life forms constitute no evidence for the theory of evolution. (For biological resistance to poisons, see Darwinism Refuted by Harun Yahya, New Delhi: Goodword Books, 2002.)

The Speciation Deception

Evolutionists maintain that the first single-celled organism emerged billions of years ago from inorganic substances, and that the glorious diversity of life on Earth, emerged over the course of hundreds of millions of years. Note that according to the Darwinist claim, millions of species formed from one single species under the influence of natural processes and coincidence. As this irrational and unscientific claim shows, the formation of species—that is, speciation—represents the basis of the theory of evolution. It is particularly clear that a claim not based on concrete evidence, observations and scientific research is of no value at all. Darwinism's claim that one species turned into millions of other species is a huge one that requires countless amounts of evidence and findings. In fact, though, there is not a single piece of scientific evidence for evolutionists' claims regarding speciation ever since the time of Darwin, evolutionists have produced a conceptual confusion and depict variations as evidence for speciation.

First let's consider the concept of species to get a better understanding of the evolutionist deception. Descriptions have been produced by various experts from different biological fields. As put by Troy Wood and Loren Rieseberg of Indiana University, "Evolutionary biologists have proposed a diverse, almost innumerable list of species concepts…"194

Biologist John Endler explains the complication as follows:

Species are "tools that are fashioned for characterizing organic diversity" (Lewin,1979). Just as there are a variety of chisels made for different purposes, different species concepts are best for different purposes; and just as it is inadvisable to use a carving chisel to cut a mortise, problems arise when one species concept is used when it is inappropriate. Confusion and controversy have often resulted because different people working with different groups of organisms mean different things by "species."195

Ali Demirsoy, one of Turkey's most prominent exponents of Darwinism, expresses the truth of the matter this way:

The question of by what bounds the species, the basic unit in the classification of plants and animals, should be separated from other species—in other words, "Species Definition"— is one of the most difficult for biology to answer. It appears impossible in the present state of our knowledge to give a definition of the species that applies to all plant and animal groups.196

We often commonly refer to various members of a class or order as one single species—when these are actually a considerable number of species with subtle differences to distinguish them. For example, some 34,000 species of spider have been identified, but in daily life we describe most of them simply as "spiders.".

Mention the word species, and most people will think of life forms such as dogs, horses, spiders, dolphins, wheat or apples. However, biologists define the concept of species in a rather different way. In modern-day biology, a living species in the most general sense consists of a population of individuals able to mate and reproduce with one another. This definition divides life forms that we generally speak of as if they were one single species into a number of different ones. For example, some 34,000 species of spiders have been described.197

To better understand the evolution deception regarding speciation, we first need to define geographic isolation. Within any living species, there will be differences stemming from genetic variation. If geographical obstacles such as a mountain chain or river arise between individuals of a species, and if they become isolated from one another, then in all likelihood, within these two separated groups, different variations will begin to dominate.198

Assume that in one group (variation A), darker skin and longer fur begin to predominate; and that another group (variation B) has shorter fur and lighter color. The longer the two populations remain separated from one another, the sharper variations A and B will become.199 Variations like these, with clear morphological differences despite their belonging to the same species, are known as subspecies.

At this point, the speciation claim enters the picture. Sometimes, after variations A and B have split away from one another due to geographic isolation and are brought back together again, their members are unable to interbreed with one another. Since they cannot mate, they cease being subspecies, according to the biological definition, and become separate species. This is known as speciation.

Evolutionists take this concept and extrapolate it "Look! There is speciation in nature. In other words, new species emerge through natural mechanisms. So all species must have come into being in this same way." In fact, however, a serious deception is being perpetrated here, because important points are being overlooked or ignored:

1) Variations A and B, after being isolated from one another, may be unable to mate when reunited again. Yet this phenomenon generally stems from mating behavior. In other words, individuals belonging to variations A and B regard each other as foreigners by the other, and thus feel no inclination to mate with others that they perceive as different—even thouigh there is no genetic incompatibility to prevent it. In terms of genetic information, they all remain members of the same species. (For this very reason, the concept of species remains a subject of debate in biology.)

2) The really important factor is that this speciation means a loss of genetic information, rather than an increase. The two variations have separated, but the reason for their division is not that either one has acquired any new genetic data. Neither variation has acquired any proteins or new enzymes, much less a new organ. There is no development here. On the contrary, instead of a previous population that contains different, possibly recessive, pieces of genetic information (using our example, a population with both long and short fur, and dark and light coloration), there are now two populations that is each relatively impoverished in terms of genetic data.

Therefore, nothing about speciation provides any support for the theory of evolution. Because it claims that all living species developed by chance, from the simple to the more complex, therefore, in order for the theory of evolution to be taken seriously, it needs to demonstrate mechanisms that can increase genetic information. The bifurcation of an existing species because of a loss of genetic variation, obviously, a different phenomenon entirely.

Evolutionists actually admit this lack of relevance. For that reason, evolutionists describe examples of variations within a species, and speciation by division into two populations (as you saw in the previous section) as micro-evolution—in the sense of variation within a species that already exists. However, the use of the word "evolution" in the term is deliberately misleading, because no evolutionary process is happening at all. The situation consists of only various combinations and distributions of genetic information already existing in that species' gene pool.

Then how did living types first emerge? How did the five kingdoms—monera, protista, fungus, plant and animal—emerge on Earth? How did the higher categories—the phyla, classes, orders, families; and for that matter, such basic categories as mammals, birds, vertebrates and crustaceans—first appear? These are the questions that evolutionists need to address.

As already stated, evolutionists refer to these subjects as macro-evolution, which is actually what they mean by the theory of evolution, because the genetic variations that Darwinists insist on calling "micro-evolution" are biological phenomena that everyone can observe and agree on. And no matter how much evolutionists employ the term evolution in describing such phenomena, they actually have nothing to do with evolution at all. On the other hand, the macro-evolution claim, has no supporting evidence, either in biological observations or in the fossil record.

People lacking sufficient information on the subject may well fall into the error of thinking that "Since micro-evolution takes place in a very short space of time, macro-evolution could take place over tens of millions of years." Some evolutionists fall into the exact same error or seek to make use of it to convince others of the truth of their theory. All the so-called proofs of evolution proposed by Charles Darwin in The Origin of Species are of that kind, as are the examples put forward by later evolutionists. In their examples, they seek to use as evidence for their theory the genetic variety that they describe as micro-evolution but which actually has nothing at all to do with what they describe as macro-evolution.

Despite all this discussion of micro- and macro-evolution and speciation, living things appeared on Earth as types with their own different structures (as is confirmed by the fossil record). Different variations and subspecies may appear within them, thanks to the richness of their gene pools. For example, there are rabbits that exhibit variations such as white fur, grey fur, longer or shorter ears, and these variations become more pronounced in a given environment, depending on which natural conditions support them most appropriately. But species never turn into other species. There is no natural mechanism that can effect this, that can design new types and develop the new organs, systems and body plans they require. Every species has been created with its own unique structures. And since God has created every one of them with a potential for variety, a wide but finite variation often emerges within each type.

Evolutionist Admissions Concerning Speciation

The rabbit species displays considerable possible variations within itself, such as white fur, grey fur, long or short ears. However, one type never turns into another.

Apart from amateurs with only a superficial knowledge of the subject, just about all evolutionists are well aware of the real difficulty they face in trying to account for the diversity of species on Earth. In his book Genetics and the Origin of Species, Theodosius Dobzhansky, one of the architects of neo-Darwinism, stated that the real problem facing evolutionists was the variety of life.200

This is the real issue on which Darwin and his followers must shed light. In The Origin of Species, Darwin offered no concrete evidence, but merely speculated. In one letter, cited by his son Francis Darwin in his book Charles Darwin's Life and Letters, he admitted this: "When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed."201

Darwin hoped that the answers to these questions would later be found and the formation of species proven over the course of time and with further scientific research. On the contrary, scientific discoveries have refuted Darwin every time. Despite all the efforts made by evolutionists over the intervening 150 years, speciation through evolutionary mechanisms has remained devoid of any proof to support it—as shown by honest confessions on the subject by various evolutionists.

Although speciation is the backbone of the theory of evolution, it is also a concept strikingly shrouded in darkness. (More accurately, evolutionists possess no other evidence than the examples of micro-evolution and variation they have distorted.) For example, in a paper published in 1999, the Indiana University biologists Troy Wood and Loren Reiseberg wrote that very little is known about the biological mechanisms that give rise to species formation.202 As Professor Gareth Nelson of the American Museum of Natural History admits, "The ‘species problem'' is perennial, and speciation remains as much a black box as ever."203

Cornell University's Professor Richard Harrison sets out the latest position in an article published in Nature magazine in 2001:

Natural communities harbor an enormous variety of species ... But what of the origin of diversity? Much less has been written about how new species arise—although the process of speciation is central to evolutionary biology.204

It is not at all surprising, actually, that so very little has been written, because scientific discoveries have revealed that one species cannot turn into another and that change takes place only within species, and within specific bounds. Not a single example of speciation through evolutionary mechanisms has been observed. In an article published in the 18 January, 2001, edition of Nature, the evolutionist biologists Darren Irwin, Staffan Bensch and Trevor Price admit as much: "The evolutionary divergence of a single species into two has never been directly observed in nature."205

Professor of Anthropology Jeffrey Schwartz, from Pittsburgh University, emphasizes the same fact in his book, Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species:

... Nevertheless, it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed. 206

Faced with these facts, some evolutionists propose an alibi along the lines of "We cannot observe speciation through evolution, because evolutionary mechanisms act over such lengthy periods of time. Therefore, speciation cannot be observed in nature or in the laboratory." This search for consolation has no scientific basis: No case of speciation has ever been seen in creatures such as fruit flies or bacteria, whose life spans are very brief. Thousands of generations of these organisms can therefore be observed by a single scientist in a few years' time.207 Countless experiments and studies have to date been conducted on various micro-organisms and animal species, and all have demolished evolutionist dreams.

Fruit flies have been bred and subjected to mutations for some 70 years. But no evolutionary change has ever taken place. No case of speciation has been encountered, and fruit flies have remained as simply fruit flies.

One evolutionist, Kevin Kelly, editor of Wired magazine and director of the All Species Foundation, states that :

Despite a close watch, we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding. That includes no new species of fruit flies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruit fly studies, where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce speciation... In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species. 208

Fruit flies have been reared and constantly subjected to mutations for some 70 years, but no speciation has ever been encountered. No evolutionary change has taken place, and fruit flies have always remained fruit flies.209 Similarly, no new species or multi-celled organism has emerged from the experiments and research conducted for many years on the single-celled bacterium Escherichia coli, which has always remained E coli.210

The fossil record itself also definitively rejects the concept of speciation. In the fossil record, there is no trace of the countless intermediate forms that should, according to Darwinism, have once existed.211

Among His Signs is the creation of the heavens and Earth and all the creatures He has spread about in them. (Surat ash-Shura, 29)

The origin of species, the emergence of new species and the diversity of life cannot be explained in terms of natural processes and random factors, as the theory of evolution maintains. Moreover, recent findings show that Darwinism is an unscientific and unrealistic theory, and a great many scientists today are aware of this. However, very few biologists express such views openly, out of a fear of being excluded from the scientific world. One of these is Professor Lynn Margulis of Massachusetts University, whose views on this subject were included in Kevin Kelly's book Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines:

"It is totally wrong. It's wrong like infectious medicine was wrong before Pasteur. It's wrong like phrenology is wrong. Every major tenet of it is wrong," said the outspoken biologist Lynn Margulis about her latest target: the dogma of Darwinian evolution. [With her theses], Margulis was ... denouncing the modern framework of the century-old theory of Darwinism, which holds that new species build up from an unbroken line of gradual, independent, random variations. Margulis is not alone in challenging the stronghold of Darwinian theory, but few have been so blunt. 212

In all the years of experimentation and research into the bacterium Escherichia coli, no other species of bacterium of other multi-celled organism has ever emerged. E. coli has always remained E. coli.

In "Ecology, Evolution and Behavior," an article in the 11 May, 2000, edition of Nature magazine, Professor Tilman neatly sum up the evolutionist dilemma:

The existence of so great a diversity of species on Earth remains a mystery.213

In conclusion, evolutionists have no answers regarding the origin and diversity of species. If they wish to find the answer, then they must abandon their belief in Darwinist deceptions and instead accept that it is Omniscient and Almighty God Who created every living species with its rich potential for variation.

Creation is unique to God. No matter how they may strive, those who deny this fact will inevitably be doomed to disappointment:

Humanity! An example has been made, so listen to it carefully. Those whom you call upon besides God are not even able to create a single fly, even if they were to join together to do it. And if a fly steals something from them, they cannot get it back. How feeble are both the seeker and the sought! (Surat-al-Hajj, 73)