Message 1 of 2 (811859)
06-12-2017 9:05 PM
It's common for creationists to dismiss any evolution that can be directly observed as "microevolution". It's also common for creationists to claim that bits of "microevolution" do not add up to "macroevolution".
One thing that has been observed in labs is mutation on coding genes that produces new proteins with new function. So, that must be "microevolution" to creationists. Another observed mutation is gene duplication. Also, therefore, microevolution.
The interesting thing is that the second of those followed by the first would create an additional, unique protein coding gene.
According to the dogma that bits of microevolution do not add up to macroevolution, then presumably this must still be microevolution.
That means that genes can be added and evolution can produce complicated organisms with tens of thousands of coding genes without involving "macroevolution", whatever it might be.
It seems that, when creationists claim that macroevolution doesn't happen, they are describing something which, on the molecular level, doesn't seem to have been required in this life system.
Does everyone agree that all the life we see around us can be produced by microevolution, or is the addition of new genes macro, and the creationists' dogma (micro does not add up to macro) wrong?
Edited by bluegenes, : typo