I want to make clear that I believe that God created everything according to Romans 1:20. I was with friends and the topic of a movie called Expelled: No Inteligence Allowed came up. I mentioned that someone I knew said "You Creationists don't believe in evolution, but we evolutionists believe in God." Our evangelist said there is a difference between microevolution and macroevolution. One is that we came from some primordial goo. The other is God created us, but we are constantly changing. I find this ideal hard to swallow. As I said before in the beginning, God created everything and that's where I see it stopping. Am I wrong?
Evolution has become so popular and so dogmatically preached that people have been searching for ways to blend the concepts of Christianity and evolution. The idea of microevolution and macroevolution is one of those shifts which attempt to find some common ground.
One definition that I found said:
Macroevolution major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa. [Dictionary.com]
Microevolution 1. evolutionary change involving the gradual accumulation of mutations leading to new varieties within a species. 2. minor evolutionary change observed over a short period of time. [Dictionary.com]
In other words, the two terms still talk about change, but macroevolution are the large changes, such as the arising of a new species. Microevolution are small changes that don't change the species, but according to evolution accumulate over time to cause macroevolutionary changes.
Basically "microevolution" has swallowed the older view of variation. Variation is the idea that every living creature has the ability to adapt to its environment within a certain range. Certain features become predominant in one environment, while others predominate in another. For example, in hot sunny climates, humans tend to have darker skin color while, in colder cloudy climates, humans tend to have lighter skin colors. Humans come in a variety of skin tones, but certain ones are better suited for certain climates. Yet, the Eskimos in northern Alaska are just as much humans as the Africans in the middle of the Congo.
But with microevolution, the limits of change are declared to be non-existent. What is claimed is that because variation in a species exists, it therefore proves that changes do occur and can accumulate it large changes. It is the latter point that is the leap of faith. There is no evidence of accumulation of small changes to large changes. What we see is variation within a range and kinds remaining the same, but that variation doesn't lead to the conclusion that transitions occur to new species. In fact, change the environment and you'll see the adaptation swing back in the other direction.
I prefer not to use the terms macroevolution and microevolution because it is a shallow attempt to get people to accept the general concept of evolution by getting the word used frequently. You can see this because evolution tends to be "sold" by getting a person to agree that microevolution exists and then saying that macroevolution is just an extension of microevolution. Textbooks supporting evolution typically state that there is no difference between microevolution and macroevolution except for the scale of changes. I continue to use the terms variation and adaptation instead.
"Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind"; and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good" (Genesis 1:24-25).