The fallacy of the creationist distinction between micro- and macroevolution

Why Evolution Is True

I’ve belabored this issue before, but there’s always a new crop of readers who might need a lesson. I’m talking about a common creationist trope: the claim that microevolution can occur, usually defined as “evolution within a species” or “evolution within a kind” (whatever a “kind” is), but that macroevolution—seen as a transition from one “kind” to another—doesn’t occur. So antibiotic resistance in a bacterial species, or a change in coat color of a mouse, is fine, because that’s just “microevolutionary change”. Ditto with the evolution of different species of cats, which is simply microevolution within the “cat kind.” And ditto for the creation of different breeds of dogs by artificial selection: breeds so different that, if they were found as fossil skeletons, some would be seen not just as different species, but as different genera. Nevertheless, creationist see that as simply change within the canid “kind”, so that artificial…

View original post 384 more words

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s