As we have
seen, genetic science has discovered that variations, which
Darwin thought could account for "the origin of species,"
actually do no such thing. For this reason, evolutionary biologists
were forced to distinguish between variation within species
and the formation of new ones, and to propose two different
concepts for these different phenomena. Diversity within a
species-that is, variation-they called "microevolution," and
the hypothesis of the development of new species was termed
These two concepts have appeared in biology books
for quite some time. But there is actually a deception going
on here, because the examples of variation that evolutionary
biologists have called "microevolution" actually have nothing
to do with the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution
proposes that living things can develop and take on new genetic
data by the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection.
However, as we have just seen, variations can never create
new genetic information, and are thus unable to bring about
"evolution." Giving variations the name of "microevolution"
is actually an ideological preference on the part of evolutionary
The impression that evolutionary biologists have
given by using the term "microevolution" is the false logic
that over time variations can form brand new classes of living
things. And many people who are not already well-informed
on the subject come away with the superficial idea that "as
it spreads, microevolution can turn into macroevolution."
One can often see examples of that kind of thinking. Some
"amateur" evolutionists put forward such examples of logic
as the following: since human beings' average height has risen
by two centimeters in just a century, this means that over
millions of years any kind of evolution is possible. However,
as has been shown above, all variations such as changes in
average height happen within specific genetic bounds, and
are trends that have nothing to do with evolution.
In fact, nowadays even evolutionist experts accept
that the variations they call "microevolution" cannot lead
to new classes of living things-in other words, to "macroevolution."
In a 1996 article in the leading journal Developmental
Biology, the evolutionary biologists S.F. Gilbert, J.M.
Opitz, and R.A. Raff explained the matter this way:
Finch beaks, which Darwin
saw in the Galapagos Islands and thought were evidence
for his theory, are actually an example of genetic
variation, and not evidence for macroevolution.
Synthesis is a remarkable achievement. However, starting
in the 1970s, many biologists began questioning its adequacy
in explaining evolution. Genetics might be adequate for
explaining microevolution, but microevolutionary changes
in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile
into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution
looks at adaptations that concern only the survival of the
fittest, not the arrival of the fittest. As Goodwin (1995)
points out, "the origin of species- Darwin's problem-remains
The fact that
"microevolution" cannot lead to "macroevolution," in other
words that variations offer no explanation of the origin of
species, has been accepted by other evolutionary biologists,
as well. The noted author and science expert Roger Lewin describes
the result of a four-day symposium held in November 1980 at
the Chicago Museum of Natural History, in which 150 evolutionists
The central question
of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying
microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena
of macroevolution. ÖThe answer can be given as a clear,
We can sum up the situation
like this: Variations, which Darwinism has seen as "evidence
of evolution" for some hundred years, actually have nothing
to do with "the origin of species." Cows can be mated together
for millions of years, and different breeds of cows may well
emerge. But cows can never turn into a different species-giraffes
or elephants for instance. In the same way, the different
finches that Darwin saw on the Galapagos Islands are another
example of variation that is no evidence for "evolution."
Recent observations have revealed that the finches did not
undergo an unlimited variation as Darwin's theory presupposed.
Moreover, most of the different types of finches which Darwin
thought represented 14 distinct species actually mated with
one another, which means that they were variations that belonged
to the same species. Scientific observation shows that the
finch beaks, which have been mythicized in almost all evolutionist
sources, are in fact an example of "variation"; therefore,
they do not constitute evidence for the theory of evolution.
For example, Peter and Rosemary Grant, who spent years observing
the finch varieties in the Galapagos Islands looking for evidence
for Darwinistic evolution, were forced to conclude that "the
population, subjected to natural selection, is oscillating
back and forth," a fact which implied that no "evolution"
that leads to the emergence of new traits ever takes place
So for these reasons, evolutionists are still
unable to resolve Darwin's problem of the "origin of species."
34 Scott Gilbert,
John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff, "Resynthesizing Evolutionary
and Developmental Biology", Developmental Biology,
173, Article no. 0032, 1996, p. 361. (emphasis added)
35 R. Lewin, "Evolutionary Theory
Under Fire", Science, vol. 210, 21 November, 1980,
36 H. Lisle Gibbs and Peter R. Grant,
"Oscillating selection on Darwin's finches," Nature,
327, 1987, pp. 513; For more detailed information, please
see Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution, 2000, pp.