Changes

'''Microevolution''', broadly defined, is the inevitable small-scale changes in [[allele]] frequencies in a population within the same species.  Under this broad definition, this change in overall allele frequencies occurs with every birth or death of a member of the species.  In other words, some generations of people might be taller than the last or shorter than the last based on the number of individuals who happen to have the "tall" gene. Microevolution does not involve changing from one [[kind]] to another, and it does not create new kinds.

'''Microevolution''', broadly defined, is the inevitable small-scale changes in [[allele]] frequencies in a population within the same species.  Under this broad definition, this change in overall allele frequencies occurs with every birth or death of a member of the species.  In other words, some generations of people might be taller than the last or shorter than the last based on the number of individuals who happen to have the "tall" gene. Microevolution does not involve changing from one [[kind]] to another, and it does not create new kinds.

[[Image:Evolution.jpg|alt=evolution darwin theory|right|thumb|200px|Late in [[Charles Darwin|Charles Darwin's]] life, Darwin told the Duke of Argyll that he frequently had overwhelming thoughts that the natural world was the [[Intelligent design|result of design]].<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html</ref>  See also: [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists] ]]  

[[Image:Evolution.jpg|alt=evolution darwin theory|right|thumb|200px|Late in [[Charles Darwin|Charles Darwin's]] life, Darwin told the Duke of Argyll that he frequently had overwhelming thoughts that the natural world was the [[Intelligent design|result of design]].<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html</ref>  See also: [https://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists] ]]  

Many evolutionists, although not all, claim that the distinction between microevolution and [[macroevolution]] is arbitrary because they indicate that microevolution leads to macroevolutionary changes.  In other words, as microevolutionary changes accumulate it leads to macroevolution. However, there have been prominent evolutionists who dispute this matter and argue that the mechanisms underlying microevolution cannot be [[Extrapolation|extrapolated]] to support the general theory of evolution (macroevolution).<ref>http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=116</ref><ref>http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Macroevolution.html</ref> [[Creationism|Creationists]] argue that microevolution/adaptation/variation within a [[Baraminology|kind of animal]] occurs, but macroevolution does not occur.  

Many evolutionists, although not all, claim that the distinction between microevolution and [[macroevolution]] is arbitrary because they indicate that microevolution leads to macroevolutionary changes.  In other words, as microevolutionary changes accumulate it leads to macroevolution. However, there have been prominent evolutionists who dispute this matter and argue that the mechanisms underlying microevolution cannot be [[Extrapolation|extrapolated]] to support the general theory of evolution (macroevolution).<ref>http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=116</ref><ref>http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Macroevolution.html</ref> [[Creationism|Creationists]] argue that microevolution/adaptation/variation within a [[Baraminology|kind of animal]] occurs, but macroevolution does not occur.  

== Intelligent design theorist on microevolution vs. macroevolution ==

== Intelligent design theorist on microevolution vs. macroevolution ==

[[Intelligent design]] (ID) is the empirically testable<ref>"Dembski and Wells argue calmly and convincingly that intelligent design theory is empirically testable (in spite of Darwinists' shrill protests to the contrary) by indicating precisely what it would take to refute the theory, namely a clear demonstration that systems exhibiting [[irreducible complexity]] with specified complexity can in fact arise spontaneously by purely material processes" source: [http://www.amazon.com/The-Design-Life-Discovering-Intelligence/dp/0980021308 The Design of Life: Discovering Signs of Intelligence in Biological Systems - Amazon page]</ref> theory that the natural world shows signs of having been designed by a purposeful, intelligent cause.<ref>

[[Intelligent design]] (ID) is the empirically testable<ref>"Dembski and Wells argue calmly and convincingly that intelligent design theory is empirically testable (in spite of Darwinists' shrill protests to the contrary) by indicating precisely what it would take to refute the theory, namely a clear demonstration that systems exhibiting [[irreducible complexity]] with specified complexity can in fact arise spontaneously by purely material processes" source: [https://www.amazon.com/The-Design-Life-Discovering-Intelligence/dp/0980021308 The Design of Life: Discovering Signs of Intelligence in Biological Systems - Amazon page]</ref> theory that the natural world shows signs of having been designed by a purposeful, intelligent cause.<ref>

An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences. [http://www.uncommondescent.com/id-defined/ ID Defined]</ref> As [[Jonathan Wells]] wrote, "ID ... asserts only that some features of living things are better explained by an intelligent cause than by unguided processes." <ref>http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/11/wired_science_one_long_bluff028441.html</ref> Wells, among others, uses ID to rebut the [[evolution|Darwinian]] assertion that the features of living things are "inexplicable on the theory of [[creation]]" but fully explicable as products of unguided natural forces.<ref>http://www.discovery.org/a/9151</ref>

An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences. [http://www.uncommondescent.com/id-defined/ ID Defined]</ref> As [[Jonathan Wells]] wrote, "ID ... asserts only that some features of living things are better explained by an intelligent cause than by unguided processes." <ref>http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/11/wired_science_one_long_bluff028441.html</ref> Wells, among others, uses ID to rebut the [[evolution|Darwinian]] assertion that the features of living things are "inexplicable on the theory of [[creation]]" but fully explicable as products of unguided natural forces.<ref>http://www.discovery.org/a/9151</ref>