Postby Slater » Sun Nov 06, 2005 7:39 pm
eh... microevolution is a misleading term. What happens is this: survival of the fittest. At least to a certain extent. It is actually best demonstrated within the human race. Notice how that (in the past, at least) the colder, less sunny parts of the world such as Europe have more white people than black. This is because black people are not able to survive well in those atmospheric conditions; their skin is not able to gain enough vitamin D in the limitted sunlight. Blacks, however, have the advantage in the sunny areas since their skin has more melanin than an Europeans. This is why there are more blacks in places like Africa than whites; white people burn up more easily and thus would die out quicker due to skin problems.
This is proven... microevolution if you wanna call it that, tho it's not really evolution at all. It's just sorting out of genes. While the Bible doesn't say so, it's a very safe to assume that Adam and Eve were people with brown skin, and that things stayed that way for until God invented different languages among men. All it takes is some high-school knowledge of genetics to see that it is 100% possible and plausible that every people group in the world could be contained in two lone people. As a matter of fact, that's somewhat proven. Years ago, in Britian, a couple of mixed descent (brownish skin) had a pair of twins. What was surprising to some was that one of the babies was as white as a european could be, and the other child had very dark skin.
Similar things happen in the animal kingdom. Dogs are dogs, but there are different kinds of dogs. Sometimes, the dogs characteristics are determined by what genetic code suited that group of dogs in the conditions they faced in the wild (such as wolves). The dogs with genes unsuited for the conditions the pack would face would be weaker than the dogs with good genes, and thus less likely to find a mate or would die out sooner. Other times, the characteristics of a certain breed of dogs is due to intentional inbreeding by humans. The dalmation, for example, was inbred to the point when its hearing problems and spotted coat (both of which are due to mutations in genes) became default in dalmations. This is why mutts are healthier dogs than purebreads; they have fewer (significant) mutations in their gene pool.
In closing, microevolution is, in concept, true. But in termonology, it is actually a form of de-evolution; the reduction of genetic information spectrum in groups of organisms. None of such things relate back to the grand evolution scheme that evolutionists such as Darwin wanted people to believe, and, as a matter of fact, it points to the Creationist approach at origins. Ever since man fell, everything in our world has been falling appart, including our genes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
One last thing to the side... someone said that these matters don't matter today because our origins are in the past. That idea couldn't be more incorrect. The bible makes it clear that there are so many things about creation that our lives revolve around. For example, we have our 7-day week because of the Law of Moses, and it was put in Moses' Law because God put it there, and God says he put it there because He created the world in 6 days and rested on the 7th. Also, evils in the world such as homosexuality and abortion are founded in evolution. If God didn't create Adam and Eve in the Garden and sanctify marriage between one man and one woman, then why say that homosexuality is wrong? If we evolved from some pond scum or animals, then why say that killing an unborn human (which, according to the evolution model, is nothing more than an animal) is wrong? Point is that if God did not create the world as He says He did, then there's a lot of things in scripture that don't make sense