To evolutionists, the only difference between micro- and macroevolution is time and scale. The small changes that we observe happening can amount to big changes if they just go on long enough. It’s like taking a few steps and moving across the room; However, those same small steps could take a person from Miami to New York if he just continued walking long enough. So, when someone says he believes in microevolution but not macroevolution, to the evolutionist, that’s like saying, “I believe in little steps but not big steps!” It doesn’t make any sense.
You may remember reading about the peppered moth in your biology textbook in school. I don’t have time here to talk about the whole study but let me recap briefly: the peppered moth is a species of moth that ranges in shades of dark to light. In the late 19th century, a British biologist observed a population of moths over time and noticed the population changed from mostly light, to mostly dark, and to mostly light again in response to changes in the environment brought about by the industrial revolution. Concerning that study, Bionity.com said this:
Critics have pointed out that the "peppered moth story" showed only microevolution, rather than the important macroevolutionary trend of speciation… Biologists agree with this point, and accept that correlation between soot on tree trunks and observed melanism in the moths is not proof of the theory of evolution as a whole. However, many do not accept the supposed distinction between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" as being part of the modern evolutionary synthesis which equates the two, instead taking the view that the mechanisms of microevolution and macroevolution are the same, the only difference being of time and scale.
So here's the question: It's been more than a century since the peppered moth study. What "macroevolution" has occurred? Now, I know what you're going to say. 100 years isn't enough time. But think very carefully and tell me this: what "microevolution" has occurred in the last 100 years? Don't think too hard because I'm going to tell you. None. The ratio of light/dark moths has changed back and forth to a net change of ZERO! There was not even microevolution! The change is not accumulating nor can it. If birds continuously ate one color of moth, it will never add new colors to the population no matter how long it occurs.
Here's a quote from Berkley.edu that echos the same point made by Bionity:
Microevolutionary change might seem too unimportant to account for such amazing evolutionary transitions as the origin of dinosaurs or the radiation of land plants — however, it is not. Microevolution happens on a small time scale — from one generation to the next. When such small changes build up over the course of millions of years, they translate into evolution on a grand scale — in other words, macroevolution!
At first hearing, arguments like this can sound very persuasive. Don't be fooled. For evolution to be possible, new traits must be added to a population. To turn a dinosaur into a bird, for example, you would have to add feathers. To turn a reptile into a mammal, you would have to add hair. The supposed first living ancestor of everything didn’t have feathers, scales, hair, or even skin. It didn’t have bones or blood. To turn a microbe into a man, it would require a billion-years-long parade of new features being added generation after generation.
The only “changes” we observe in nature are the reshuffling of traits already present in a population. We also observe traits being removed from a population. We don’t observe novel traits being added to a population. The small changes we observed in the peppered moth, will never make the moth anything other than a moth - not even in a million years!
Evolutionists give no consideration to the types of changes we observe. By their own admission, the only difference they see between micro- and macroevolution is time and scale. They believe the same mechanisms drive both and the accumulations of small changes (micro) will amount to big changes (macro) over time. That’s like believing you could turn a molehill into a mountain by continuously removing dirt; you just have to dig long enough!
Natural selection can make a group of creatures well suited to its environment. A well adapted group might even earn the moniker of a new “species.” However, natural selection can never add things to a population. Natural selection is the opposite of evolution. So even though the population has “changed,” it still hasn’t “evolved.”
Let me be clear: evolution does not occur at all - neither micro nor macro. To use these terms at all tacitly yields ground to evolutionists that isn’t theirs to claim. If they want to prove their theory, they need to show clear examples of animal populations acquiring novel traits. Stop showing me examples of natural selection and calling it “microevolution.” In the meantime, creationists need to stop calling it microevolution as well.
