Microevolution vs Macroevolution

This is the belief that all life forms have descended from a common ancestor - the first one-celled creature-and all of this happened by natural process without any intelligent intervention. God was not involved. It has been a completely blind process.

Darwinists say this happened by natural selection. But the term "natural election" is a misnomer. Since the process of evolution is, by definition, without intelligence, there is no "selection" at all going on. It's a blind process. The term "natural selection" simply means that the fittest creautures survive. That's true by definition - the fittest survive (this is called a tautology - a circular argument that doesn't prove anything). Logically, these are the creatures that are best equipped genetically or structurally to deal with changing environmental conditions (that's why they survive).

As an example of "natural selection," consider wat happens to bcteria attacked by antibiotics. When bacteria survive a bout with anitibiotics and multiply, that surviving group of bcteria may be resistant t that atibiotic. The surviving bcteria are resistant t tat antibiotic because te parent bacteria possessed the genetic capacity t resist, or arare biochemical mutation somehow helped it srvive (we ay "rare" because mutations are nearly always hrmful). Since the sensitive bacteria die, the surviving bacteria multiply and now dominate.

Darwinists say that the surviving bacteria have evolved. Having adapted to the environment, the surviving bacteria provide us with an example of evolution. Fair enough, but what kind of evolution? This is where Darwinian errors and false claims begin if not checked by those who believe observation is important to science. Here's what observation tells us: the surviving bacteria always stays bacteria. They do not evolve into another type of organism. That would be macroevolution. Natural selection has never been observed to create new types.

But macroevolution is exactly what Darwinists claim from the data. They say hese observable micro canges can be extrapolated to prove that unobservable macroevolution has occured. They make no distinction between microevolution and macroevolution, and tus use te evidence for micro to prove macro. By failing to make this critical distinction, Darwinists can dpe the general public ito tinking that ay observable change in any oganism proves that all life has evolved from te first one-celled creature.

This is why it is essential that the right distinctions be made and that all hidden assumptions be exposed when discussing the creation-evolution controversy.