if you want a fruit fly at all, you cannot perturb its early development. The problem is for macro-evolution to occur is that is exactly the place where the mutations have to take place. So you have this paradox. Hence you have this Darwinian paradox: In order to macro-evolve a species, if you will, you need to have early acting viable mutations. Thow those are the ones that are by far the most destructive. Which means that natural selection cannot operate. Natural selection thow it is a natural process, it is powerless to effect macro-evolution because the kind of variation that it needs is too destructive to animals.
Stephen C. Meyer,Darwins doubt :
EVO-DEVO AND ITS PROPOSALS
The neo-Darwinian synthesis has long emphasized that large-scale macroevolutionary change occurs as the inevitable by-product of the accumulation of small-scale "microevolutionary" changes within populations. The consensus in support of this idea began to fray in evolutionary biology during the early 1970s, when young paleontologists such as Gould, Niles Eldredge, and Steven Stanley realized that the fossil record did not show a pattern of gradual "micro-to-macro" change. In 1980, at a now famous symposium on macroevolution at the Field Museum in Chicago, the rebellion burst into full view, exposing what developmental biologist Scott Gilbert called "an underground current in evolutionary theory" among theorists who had concluded that "macroevolution could not be derived from microevolution."
At the conference, paleontologists who doubted the "micro-to-macro" consensus found allies among younger developmental biologists. They were dissatisfied with neo-Darwinism in part because they knew that population genetics, its mathematical expression, sought only to quantify changes in gene frequency rather than explain the origin of genes or novel body plans. Thus, many developmental biologists thought that neo-Darwinism did not offer a compelling theory of macroevolution. To formulate a more robust theory, many developmental biologists, such as Rudolf Raff, a developmental biologist at the University of Indiana and one of the founders of "evo-devo," urged evolutionary theorists to incorporate insights from their discipline. For example, developmental biologists know that mutations expressed early in the development of animals are necessary to alter body-plan morphogenesis. Thus, they argue that these mutations must have played a significant role in generating whole new animal forms during the history of life. They assert that this understanding of developmental processes is crucial to understanding animal evolution. Some evo-devo advocates such as Sean B. Carroll and Jeffrey Schwartz have pointed specifically to homeotic (or Hox) genes— master regulatory genes that affect the location, timing, and expression of other genes—as entities capable of producing such large-scale change in animal form. These evo-devo advocates have broken with classical neo-Darwinism primarily in their understanding of the size or increment of mutational change.
Claim: Macro-evolution is nothing but lots and lots of “micro-evolution”!
Such a point of view is simply untenable, and it denotes a complete misunderstanding of the nature of function. Macroevolution, in all its possible meanings, implies the emergence of new complex functions. A function is not the simplistic sum of a great number of “elementary” sub-functions: sub-functions have to be interfaced and coherently integrated to give a smoothly performing whole. In the same way, macroevolution is not the mere sum of elementary microevolutionary events. A computer program, for instance, is not the sum of simple instructions. Even if it is composed ultimately of simple instructions, the information-processing capacity of the software depends on the special, complex order of those instructions. You will never obtain a complex computer program by randomly assembling elementary instructions or modules of such instructions. In the same way, macroevolution cannot be a linear, simple or random accumulation of microevolutionary steps. Microevolution, in all its known examples (antibiotic resistance, and similar) is made of simple variations, which are selectable for the immediate advantage connected to them. But a new functional protein cannot be built by simple selectable variations, no more than a poem can be created by random variations of single letters, or a software written by a sequence of elementary (bit-like) random variations, each of them improving the “function” of the software. Function simply does not work that way. Function derives from higher levels of order and connection, which cannot emerge from a random accumulation of micro-variations. As the complexity (number of bits) of the functional sequence increases, the search space increases exponentially, rapidly denying any chance of random exploration of the space itself.
Macroevolution is the somewhat more controversial, theoretical extrapolation of microevolution that requires the introduction of new genetic information. It is believed to produce large-scale (“macro”) changes. An amphibian evolving into a reptile or a reptile evolving into a bird would be examples of macroevolution.
Macroevolution is an important concept because Darwinists believe that it is the mechanism for their idea that all life evolved from a common primordial ancestor. Since microevolution is small-scale (“micro”) biological change, and macroevolution is large-scale (“macro”) biological change, many Darwinists argue that macroevolution is simply the accumulation of microevolutionary changes over time. Ostensibly, this is a reasonable extrapolation of microevolution. Darwinists, therefore, often cite evidence for microevolution as evidence for macroevolution. However, because macroevolution requires new additional genetic information, no amount of rearrangement, corruption or loss of existing genetic information will produce macroevolution. In other words, no amount of microevolution will produce macroevolution. Darwinists draw a false correlation between the two.
What prevents macroevolution?
Loci that are obviously variable within natural populations do not seem to lie at the basis of many major adaptive changes, while those loci that seemingly do constitute the foundation of many if not most major adaptive changes are not variable.- John McDonald, “The Molecular Basis of Adaptation: A Critical Review of Relevant Ideas and Observation”, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics: 14, 1983, p77-102
IOW the mutations responsible for microevolution are not the same genes that can possibly produce macroevolutionary change. And the genes responsible for microevolution are variable while the genes that can possibly produce macroevolutionary are are not.
Macroevolution, on the other hand, would require really big structural (phenotypic) changes in organisms. Genetically, it would require the creation of massive new arrays of information-packed genes from nothing but molecular gibberish. For example, the alleged evolution of the first cell calls for emergence of at least 300 highly complex, working genes from nothing but random, simple chemicals like methane and ammonia. Not even a small sequence of genetic code has ever been produced in this way, let alone 300 complex, interwoven genes working precisely together. Similarly, the theorized transitions from microbes to invertebrates, fish, reptiles, etc., call for added vast amounts of totally new genetic information at each stage. No process of genetic creation like this has ever been observed. Natural selection is powerless to create completely new genes from random chemicals.
So exactly why can’t microevolution lead to macroevolution? In order for this to happen, something very fundamental must occur: new genetic information must arise in an organism. The organism must then pass on its genes on to its descendents, and with later accumulations of changes over several generations, eventually macroevolution will occur. This theory actually seems pretty logical, yet as logical as it may seem, it is not what we observe when microevolution occurs. In fact, we observe exactly the opposite of what must happen if microbe-to-man evolution is true. And that is, we see organisms become more specialized as they adapt to their environment, or when speciation occurs. Sometimes these changes might even be beneficial despite being an overall loss of information. For example, beetles on a windy island will sometimes lose their wings due to a degenerative mutation. This mutation is actually beneficial in this circumstance because the beetles aren’t able to fly and be blown off into the ocean. But even though this mutation is beneficial, it still resulted in a net loss of information.
Information is the key factor if microevolution is going to eventually extrapolate into macroevolution. The evolutionists might try to counter this by pointing out that the reason we may not see new information arise is because it is extremely rare. So rare, in fact, that it might not ever happen in our lifetime or even in several generations. Admittedly, this might actually be true when it comes to multi-cellular life forms; however, if this type of evolution is true or is at least even possible, then one might not have to look much further than microscopic single-cellular life forms such as bacteria to observe the changes. Under the right conditions, a bacterium can divide every 20 minutes. This means if the conditions are right, one bacterium can multiply into billions of bacteria within 24 hours. As any biologist can testify, the numbers at which bacteria can populate is staggering, and because bacteria can multiply so quickly, this can be used to simulate eons of time. If macroevolution is true, it shouldn’t be that inconceivable to see bacteria gain new genetic information. It also shouldn’t be too unreasonable to expect to see a single-cellular bacterium evolve into a multi-cellular bacterium. Why then has this never been observed to occur even in bacteria? Perhaps it’s because the types of changes that are needed to lead microevolution to macroevolution simply do not happen.
If the definition of microevolution is limited to what has been observed, then it is a powerful testimony that life has not evolved. It is no surprise to creationists that animals become more specialized and often lose information when they ‘microevolve’. This should be expected since our Creator created everything perfectly and now things are winding down.
BarbMay 13, 2013 at 6:47 pm
The message once again confirmed by mutations is the formula of Genesis chapter 1: Living things reproduce only “according to their kinds.” The reason is that the genetic code stops a plant or an animal from moving too far from the average. There can be great variety (as can be seen, for example, among humans, cats or dogs) but not so much that one living thing could change into another. Every experiment ever conducted with mutations proves this. Also proved is the law of biogenesis, that life comes only from preexisting life, and that the parent organism and its offspring are of the same “kind.” Much the same observation is made in Science magazine: “Species do indeed have a capacity to undergo minor modifications in their physical and other characteristics, but this is limited and with a longer perspective it is reflected in an oscillation about a mean [average].” So, then, what is inherited by living things is not the possibility of continued change but instead (1) stability and (2) limited ranges of variation.
The whole idea of evolution rests on the premise that small changes can lead to survival advantage (or as least not *disadvantage*), and hence you would expect changes to biological life to be always occurring.
However, a study of systems and how they operate show that generally, highly complex systems cannot just "gradually transition" from one fundamental way of operating to another. You don't just "gradually transition" from a mechanical point system in a car to electrical ignition for example. In most mechanical systems, if you were to introduce incremental changes, you would go through a significant dip of *reduced functionality* before it arrived at the next "system state" with *increased* functionality.
Now on the face of it, systems analysis would lead us to expect that there is a "range of change" that could be expected to occur, but *also* a degree of complexity that could not be "jumped" by small variations.
So, for example, in something highly complex, like the clotting mechanism of blood, what you would expect to see are different, complex systems in different species, but not a "smooth transition" between these mechanisms.
What should be evident from this is that the distinction between "micro" and "macro" evolution cannot be reduced down to "mere stupidity". There are real reasons involved for that distinction (and sometimes those who deny the distinction do so because they don't actually understand the problem).
Creationists invented micro and macro evolution
Some evolution apologists have claimed that creationists invented the terms micro and macro evolution. The scientific community doesn't use these terms, say some skeptics, they are used only by creationists in anti-evolution literature. According to Jonathan Wells,
In 2005, Darwinist Gary Hurd claimed that the distinction between microevolution and macroevolution was just a creationist fabrication. … Hurd wrote to the Kansas State Board of Education: “…‘macro’ and ‘micro’ evolution ... have no meaning outside of creationist polemics. 
It is completely false to claim that creationists have invented these terms. As Wells argues in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, 'micro' and 'macro' evolution have been used in the scientific literature for decades (55-56).
What's more, young earth creationists have argued for years that the distinction between small and large changes is not their focus. Instead, most young earth creationists emphasize that mutations and natural selection are incapable of adding new information to the genome. CMI summarizes this point:
“ These terms, which focus on ‘small’ v. ‘large’ changes, distract from the key issue of information. That is, particles-to-people evolution requires changes that increase genetic information, but all we observe is sorting and loss of information. We have yet to see even a ‘micro’ increase in information, although such changes should be frequent if evolution were true. Conversely, we do observe quite ‘macro’ changes that involve no new information, e.g. when a control gene is switched on or off.
Last edited by Otangelo on Wed Jan 13, 2021 7:05 am; edited 13 times in total