Evolution, macroevolution, abiogenesis, spontaneous generation, big bang---all of these things doesn't make any sense! Charles Robert Darwin, the father of evolutionary biology, theorized that a horse's ancestor may possibly be a cow. What? Well to better understand everything, I will explain two types of evolution that Darwin hypothesized which are the microevolution and the macroevolution. I will also explain this abiogenesis, spontaneous generation, and big bang theory and why should we not believe it. 
Picture
1. Microevolution v.s. Macroevolution-
What is the definition for microevolution and macroevolution? Well according to Apologia: Exploring Creation with biology 2nd edition.p268
Microevolution-The theory that natural selection can over time, take organism and transform it into more specialized species of that organism.
Macroevolution-The hypothesis that processes similar to those at work in microevolution can over eons of time, transform an organism into a completely different kind of organism.

In simple explanation, the difference between microevolution and macroevolution is that macroevolution evolves from one simple life form into a more specific life form (ex. fish-human) and microevolution evolves from one type of life form and reproduces other life forms with certain different features (ex. wild dog-domesticated dog)

I believe that microevolution is true, but macroevolution doesn't exist and isn't possible for as it says in 
Genesis 1;27
"So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them."


One example that may be used to state that microevolution may have occurred after God's creation is through Adam and Eve. I believe that how we all got different appearances and colors is an example of microevolution. I have already stated on my first year portfolio before that God designed Adam and Eve, our first parents, to have a wide variety of genetics to reproduce different appearances to their descendants. it is also possible that Noah and his family inherited a wide variety of genetics too and reproduced different appearances of their descendants. As for the language and dialect, we all know that this happened in the Tower of Babel (Read Genesis 11;1-9)

Link to where I got the information and resource:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/adam-eve-skin-tones-one-race


The macroevolution however, doesn't have any stable and definite evidence to support it. Many macroevolutionists say that the Geologic column is their evidence, but as we all know, science changes and isn't definite and stable so the people who are against macroevolution said that there is a possibility that these layers of strata was caused by natural disasters. One world-wide disaster that may support this possibility is the world-wide flood that occurred during Noah's time.
 

You see you must understand that science has limitations. You must never put your trust in science because science cannot answer everything. As time moves, everything changes and grows old. We grow old, the animals and plants grow old, and so science changes too just as we change. But know that there is one Someone who is never changing, that is God. He is eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient in all aspects.

Picture
2. Spontaneous Generation and Abiogenesis- 

Spontaneous generation-an idea that living forms were created from non-living things.
Abiogenesis- an idea that long ago, there were only simple life forms that spontaneously appeared.


Scientists didn't give up the idea of evolution. Darwin's work inspired scientists to prove another answer that life began without any creator. The idea of the spontaneous generation actually began long ago in 350 B.C. when Aristotle concluded that when men left meat open and allowed it to decay,maggots will appear. Aristotle made other observations to support his hypothesis on spontaneous generation. The spontaneous generation quickly became a theory because of the data that supported it.

In mid-1600's, a biologist whose name was Jean Baptist van Helmont, did an experiment that also supported the theory of spontaneous generation. 

The experiment that he conducted was a recipe for mice. He concluded that when you put sweaty shirts and wheat on a closed box for 21 days, mice would appear!
Experiments continued for 1,900 years and all of them seemed to support the theory and the theory quickly became a scientific law. Until about the same time, Francesco Redi, an Italian physician, questioned the scientific law of spontaneous generation. He was the first scientist that questioned and conducted an experiment that was against the scientific law. He argued whether the mice came in the box or outside the 
Picture
box. His experiment includes three jars with meat on each jar. The first jar he didn't close, the second he sealed tightly and the third he closed with fine netting ,(His reason why he closed the third jar with fine netting was because the scientists argued that without air no one can live). The experiment was to see that maggots don't form from decayed meat. The result of the experiment showed that maggots only formed on the opened jar because the flies laid their eggs in it while, the other two jars ,even the one with fine netting, didn't have any maggots.

The result of Redi's experiment shocked the world because all experiments that were conducted for the spontaneous generation for the past 1,900 years seemed to support the theory!

Many scientists still faithfully believed that somehow maybe microorganisms may have spontaneously appeared. 
In 1670's, those microorganisms were  found by Anton van Leeuwenhoek. Anton van Leeuwenhoek and other scientists seemed to support that microorganisms may have spontaneously appear through holding experiments. In the mid-1700's ,John Needham conducted an experiment similar to Redi's experiment. In his experiment, he first boiled the infusion on a flask then sealed the flask with a cork. After a few days, microorganisms appeared. This experiment made way for the spontaneous generation to again be believed.

Lazzaro Spallanzani, a contemporary of Needham argued that it is either that Needham didn't boiled the infusion for too long or the cork allowed microorganisms to enter. Thus he revised Needham's experiment but he melted the opening of the flask to allow any microorganisms to enter. This seal was airtight so then again the other scientists complained that without air, nothing can live. 

The argument on spontaneous generation went on until one day, Louis Pasteur conducted an experiment that refuted the theory of spontaneous generation. He showed ,using his swan-necked flasks, that microorganisms enter through the opened flask but are prevented from mixing with the infusion due to the curved-bent of the flask.

3. Big Bang- the last topic that I won't be discussing is this big bang evolution. 
"Big bang, at first there was nothing then BOOM! the universe was created."
-Dr. Chuck Missler
The thing that I don't get is why do scientists believe in the big bang evolution if they don't even know how it BANG! in the first place? What is it that BOOMED! ? Where did the heat ,that big bang evolutionists state was the reason that the universe slowly unfolded, come from?

Well now that these evolution theories are explained, what now?

NOTE: All pictures used are from Google.
Jackson Wheat
9/14/2016 09:51:58 pm

Hello, my name is Jackson Wheat, and I'm a biology major at LSU. I was doing research for a YouTube video that I'm making when I came across your site, which looks quite nice by the way. However, this page, as well as others, contains many factual inaccuracies, but I will just discuss a few. If you want me to continue explaining, then you can email me. First, the definition of evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population over time; that's rather easy. Evolution generally goes about through a three-step process: mutation, natural selection (or another mechanism like sexual or artificial selection or genetic drift), and speciation. That being said, microevolution is genetic change below the level of species. Yes, like forming different breeds of dogs or horses. Macroevolution, on the other hand, is genetic change at or above the level of species, also known as speciation. This has been directly observed in cichlids (a type of fish), finches, mosquitoes, bacteria, and various other animals.
Now, with those definitions out of the way, we can take a look at your definitions. First, Darwin didn't hypothesize either micro- or macroevolution; he pointed out that organisms can and do change over time through natural mechanisms--like natural and sexual selection. The words micro- and macroevolution weren't used until the 1930's--long after Darwin had died. Second, I'm a little confused by your definition of microevolution: what is a "more specialized species?" Does artificially selecting dogs from wolves (going from Canis lupus to Canis lupus familiaris) make dogs more specialized?
Before I end this, I want to address your opening paragraph. You're clearly trying to fight a war on too many fronts, and since the definitions you're starting with are wrong, I'd suggest going through those things one at a time. To begin, Darwin never said that a horse's ancestor was a cow; rather, his work helped us to realize that a horse and a cow share a common ancestor. You would know that if you'd read Origin of Species, which I have. Anyway, thanks for your time.

Reply



Leave a Reply.