Microevolution - Revision history

Lazarus12 at 16:40, September 7, 2025

2025-09-07T16:40:14Z

Lazarus12 at 21:12, September 5, 2025

2025-09-05T21:12:14Z

Lazarus12 at 21:04, September 5, 2025

2025-09-05T21:04:41Z

DavidB4-bot: HTTP --> HTTPS #3, replaced: http://creation.com → https://creation.com, http://www.amazon.com → https://www.amazon.com

2019-04-09T17:34:33Z

HTTP --> HTTPS #3, replaced: http://creation.com → https://creation.com, http://www.amazon.com → https://www.amazon.com

DavidB4-bot: /* Humans */HTTP --> HTTPS [#1], replaced: http://www.washingtonpost.com → https://www.washingtonpost.com

2018-09-26T18:30:47Z

Humans: HTTP --> HTTPS [#1], replaced: http://www.washingtonpost.com → https://www.washingtonpost.com

DavidB4-bot: /* top */Spelling, grammar, and general cleanup

2017-07-15T06:49:30Z

top: Spelling, grammar, and general cleanup

1990'sguy: /* Microevolution in Creation Science */ Better link.

2017-03-27T22:16:21Z

Microevolution in Creation Science: Better link.

1990'sguy: /* Microevolution in Creation Science */ I think more than "some" creation scientists hold this view. I think its the commonly-accepted view today among them.

2017-03-27T22:15:44Z

Microevolution in Creation Science: I think more than "some" creation scientists hold this view. I think its the commonly-accepted view today among them.

1990'sguy: /* Microevolution in Creation Science */ Ref.

2017-03-24T23:14:52Z

Microevolution in Creation Science: Ref.

Conservative at 23:07, March 24, 2017

2017-03-24T23:07:14Z

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 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>
-[[Microevolution]] and natural selection are accepted to occur by all [[Creationism|Creationists]],<ref name="nat">Numbers RL. Ironic Heresy: How Young-Earth Creationists Came to Embrace Rapid Microevolution by Means of Natural Selection. In: Lustig A, Richards RJ, Ruse M, eds. Darwinian Heresies. Cambridge University Press; 2004:84-100.</ref> but [[macroevolution]] and the limits of natural selection is what is usually disputed.<ref>[https://answersingenesis.org/evolution/?srsltid=AfmBOopLgbKLuo1T0WUtyPAE_oC6BsxXISw-TLyKw37AXTXDbMH77y-v Evolution - Answers in Genesis]</ref><ref name="nat" />
+Microevolution and natural selection are accepted to occur by all [[Creationism|Creationists]],<ref name="nat">Numbers RL. Ironic Heresy: How Young-Earth Creationists Came to Embrace Rapid Microevolution by Means of Natural Selection. In: Lustig A, Richards RJ, Ruse M, eds. Darwinian Heresies. Cambridge University Press; 2004:84-100.</ref> but [[macroevolution]] and the limits of natural selection is what is usually disputed.<ref>[https://answersingenesis.org/evolution/?srsltid=AfmBOopLgbKLuo1T0WUtyPAE_oC6BsxXISw-TLyKw37AXTXDbMH77y-v Evolution - Answers in Genesis]</ref><ref name="nat" />
 The website Darwinism Refuted points out that finch beak microevolution, which [[Charles Darwin]] wrongly speculated leads to macroevolution, actually helps show that birds remain birds.<ref>[http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_species_02.html Darwinism Refuted]</ref>

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 '''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: [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>
 The website Darwinism Refuted points out that finch beak microevolution, which [[Charles Darwin]] wrongly speculated leads to macroevolution, actually helps show that birds remain birds.<ref>[http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_species_02.html Darwinism Refuted]</ref>

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:04, September 5, 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	[[File:Microevolutionmacroevolution.PNG\|alt=evolution darwin theory\|right\|thumb\|300px\|Microevolution involves changes to species within similar types of species. In contrast, macroevolution is accumulation of microevolutionary changes over long periods of time and may involve emergence of new species. The causes of a new species could be due to design, nature, or a combination of both.]]
	'''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: [https://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] ]]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 '''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.
@@ Line 38: / Line 38: @@
 == 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>

@@ Line 60: / Line 60: @@
 In one of the most widely publicized cases of unexpected rapid microevolution, Australian Cane Toads defied predictions based on evolutionary theory by experts about how they would react after being introduced to Australia. Within decades they evolved longer legs and heat tolerance, running amok and causing havoc for the wildlife; and instituting a national catastrophe for the continent. {{cquote|The evolutionary processes spawned by the cane toad invasion have occurred in a span of just 70 years. This adds to evidence from the past two decades that populations can adapt quickly when selection pressure is strong. 'We're taught evolution occurs over these very, very long time frames. But in systems like these, it's incredibly fast,' Shine, the study co-author, said.<ref>Roach, John (2006, February 15). "[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/02/0215_060215_cane_toads.html Toxic Toads Evolve Longer Legs, Study Says]." ''National Geographic''.</ref>}} {{cquote|'All of a sudden in the last 10 years it changes,' said Skelly. 'They're moving into areas where the physical environment is not like anything in their native range.' That implies that the cane toads have evolved more tolerance for the hotter climates they are now encountering. This is on top of the discovery last year that the toads at the forefront of the invasion had evolved longer legs than those in the interior of their range. The ability of animals to evolve so quickly needs to be factored into invasions, or the dangers of invasive species will likely be underestimated, argue Skelly and his colleagues Mark Urban, Ben Phillips and Richard Shine in an article in the March 28 issue of the Proceedings of the Royal Society-B.<ref>O'Hanlon, Larry (2007, April 2). "[http://news.discovery.com/animals/toxic-cane-toads-evolve-quickly.html Toxic Toads Evolving Quickly]." ''DiscoveryNews''.</ref>}}
 ====Humans ====
-According to the assumptions of evolutionary theory, if evolution always went at the rate that we see today, there should be 160 times more differences between humans and apes. So rather than assume 'the present is the key to the past', scientists then decided that evolutionary rates today have accelerated for some reason. {{cquote|If humans had always evolved at this rate, the difference between modern humans and chimps should be 160 times greater than it really is. 'We realized we must be in a transient [phase], that evolution hasn't been going this fast for long in our species,' Harpending said. 'And so we wondered why.'<ref>Roach, John (2007, December 11). "[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071211-human-evolution.html Human Evolution Speeding Up]." ''National Geographic''.</ref>}} {{cquote|'I was raised with the belief that modern humans showed up 40,000 to 50,000 years ago and haven't changed,' explained Henry C. Harpending, an anthropologist at the University of Utah. 'The opposite seems to be true.'... If evolution had been proceeding steadily at the current rate since humans and chimps separated 6 million years ago there should be 160 times more differences than the researchers found. That indicates that human evolution had been slower in the distant past, Harpending explained.<ref>Schmid, Randolph E. (2007, December 10). "[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/10/AR2007121001235.html?nav=rss_nation Researchers: Human Evolution Speeding Up]." ''The Washington Post''.</ref>}}
+According to the assumptions of evolutionary theory, if evolution always went at the rate that we see today, there should be 160 times more differences between humans and apes. So rather than assume 'the present is the key to the past', scientists then decided that evolutionary rates today have accelerated for some reason. {{cquote|If humans had always evolved at this rate, the difference between modern humans and chimps should be 160 times greater than it really is. 'We realized we must be in a transient [phase], that evolution hasn't been going this fast for long in our species,' Harpending said. 'And so we wondered why.'<ref>Roach, John (2007, December 11). "[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071211-human-evolution.html Human Evolution Speeding Up]." ''National Geographic''.</ref>}} {{cquote|'I was raised with the belief that modern humans showed up 40,000 to 50,000 years ago and haven't changed,' explained Henry C. Harpending, an anthropologist at the University of Utah. 'The opposite seems to be true.'... If evolution had been proceeding steadily at the current rate since humans and chimps separated 6 million years ago there should be 160 times more differences than the researchers found. That indicates that human evolution had been slower in the distant past, Harpending explained.<ref>Schmid, Randolph E. (2007, December 10). "[https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/10/AR2007121001235.html?nav=rss_nation Researchers: Human Evolution Speeding Up]." ''The Washington Post''.</ref>}}
 ====Italian Wall Lizards====

@@ Line 34: / Line 34: @@
 == Microevolution in Creation Science ==
-Whilst many [[creationists]] agree with the concept of microevolution, but call it adaptation, they argue that there is a large difference between microevolution and [[macroevolution]].<ref>[https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/adaptation/ Adaptation]. ''Answers in Genesis''. Retrieved March 24, 2017.</ref>  However, as indicated above, most evolutionary scientists do not make any real distinction between the two,<ref>[http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0428doser.shtml AAAS press release]</ref> and leading creationists argue that using the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution" obscures the real distinction, that being between the unobserved information-generating mutations that evolution requires and information-destroying mutations that are observed.<ref>[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2996#micro_macro Arguments we think creationists should NOT use] (Creation Ministries International).</ref>
+Whilst many [[Creation science|creation scientists]] agree with the concept of microevolution, but call it adaptation, they argue that there is a large difference between microevolution and [[macroevolution]].<ref>[https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/adaptation/ Adaptation]. ''Answers in Genesis''. Retrieved March 24, 2017.</ref>  However, as indicated above, most evolutionary scientists do not make any real distinction between the two,<ref>[http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0428doser.shtml AAAS press release]</ref> and leading creationists argue that using the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution" obscures the real distinction, that being between the unobserved information-generating mutations that evolution requires and information-destroying mutations that are observed.<ref>[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2996#micro_macro Arguments we think creationists should NOT use] (Creation Ministries International).</ref>
 == Intelligent design theorist on microevolution vs. macroevolution ==

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 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.
-The website Darwinism Refuted points out that finch beak microevolution, which [[Charles Darwin]] wrongly speculated leads to macroevolution, actually shows that birds remain birds.<ref>[http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_species_02.html Darwinism Refuted]</ref>
+The website Darwinism Refuted points out that finch beak microevolution, which [[Charles Darwin]] wrongly speculated leads to macroevolution, actually helps show that birds remain birds.<ref>[http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_species_02.html Darwinism Refuted]</ref>
 Specifically, the website Darwinism Refuted indicates: