I almost started off by referencing “last week’s post” … but since I’m now on the every-other-week schedule for Wednesdays while we are in the process of moving, I guess it was actually two weeks ago! Anyway, in the previous post from this Truth & Evidences series we talked about the problems of where life could have come from in the first place if it didn’t come from a Designer. (If you’re new to this series, you can click here to see that post, or you can click here to see a list of all the previous posts from this series.)

Today we’re going to set aside the problem of how that first cell could have originated and look at the problems associated with getting from some simple life to the amazing and diverse amounts of life we have today. This is what Darwin’s theory of evolution is proposed to explain.

Now, often a person might say, “I don’t believe in evolution”, or of course on the other side – that they do. But really, it’s not all that straightforward. There is more than one kind of evolution, micro-evolution and macro-evolution. I certainly do believe in micro-evolution. Macro-evolution is the one I don’t buy. Here’s the basic difference:

There can certainly be changes within a gene pool – breeders use this to their advantage all the time. But in the end, it may be bigger, smaller, lighter, darker, faster, stronger – but, as in the above example, it is still a sheep. You may be familiar with Darwin’s finches:

On the Galapagos Islands, Darwin discovered these birds, and how their different beaks were adapted to the different tasks each bird needed – some better for cracking seeds, some better for needling insects out of small holes. This was significant in Darwin’s description of natural selection – that animals that best suited for survival were able to generate offspring and pass along their genes. The thing is, though, this is an excellent example of micro-evolution. They are all still finches. It wasn’t that some were observed to have developed a turtle shell or were half-reptile. It was just micro-evolution.

It is the same thing with the experiments scientists do with fruit flies, where they can get a fruit fly to grow extra legs, or have a third wing, and so forth. They are certainly changes … but they are still just fruit flies. And usually not very healthy ones, at that.

Micro-evolution does not prove macro-evolution. You might see some very convincing artists’ renditions of the steps between species, but an artist’s rendition is not proof. We often hear about “the missing link” – but it’s not as if we have the full steps from each species to the next, and there is just ONE piece missing. The missing links are countless. Here is an interesting quote from Gary Parker:

In most people’s minds, fossils and Evolution go hand in hand. In reality, fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation. If Evolution were true, we should find literally millions of fossils that show how one kind of life slowly and gradually changed to another kind of life. But missing links are the trade secret, in a sense, of paleontology. The point is, the links are still missing. What we really find are gaps that sharpen up the boundaries between kinds. It’s those gaps which provide us with the evidence of Creation of separate kinds. As a matter of fact, there are gaps between each of the major kinds of plants and animals. Transition forms are missing by the millions. What we do find are separate and complex kinds, pointing to Creation.

But what about those photographs we see of a series of skulls leading up from apes to man? Those are actual bones, not just drawings – don’t those show the process of evolution? I’m sure we’ve all seen those charts – with the ape skull on the left and the “modern man” skull on the right, and the in between skulls of neanderthals and so forth. One of the basic problems with this is the very limited definition of “modern man”. Usually what is shown is a very European skull, kind of light bulb shaped. However that is not what all “modern man” skulls look like. For instance, in my family we have very oblong skulls, as you typically see shown in the in-between stages of evolution in those charts. In fact, my dad has measured his skull, and according to the ratios given by scientists for neanderthal skulls, his skull fits into that category. My skull is much the same shape as his .. more oblong and football shaped with a sloping back forehead, I guess I should measure mine! Maybe I would be classified as a neanderthal, too. And the fact is, there is a HUGE variety in skulls of the modern man, vastly different that the European light-bulb shape shown at the end of the chart. Imagine if my skull or my dad’s skull, or some of the many other diverse shapes of skulls were shown at the end of that chart – it wouldn’t look like such a smooth transition any more, would it? If we can have neanderthal skulls today .. why couldn’t mankind have also had neanderthal skulls in the past?

Changes in appearance within one species (micro-evolution) is a completely different thing than changes from one species into something different (macro-evolution). Micro-evolution does not prove macro-evolution.

Leave your thoughts and comments below, I love to hear from you!