Macroevolution And Microevolution


Printer Friendly version.

Lessons/Macroevolution and Microevolution.pdf


The theory of macroevolution is the idea that the universe and everything in it evolved out of non-living matter. The theory of microevolution is the teaching that within various species of animal, plant, insect and other natural life, there are changes because of genetic mutations. Microevolution is not opposed to God and the Bible, but macroevolution is.

The theory of macroevolution is based on the ridiculous theory that non-living matter like rocks, dirt and metals can turn into living beings. This theory is called spontaneous generation. Not one example of spontaneous generation has ever been observed by any scientist throughout history. But despite this, the gullible followers of macroevolution still claim that there must have been times in the past when dead matter changed into living matter. They must hold this unproven assumption, because without it macroevolution has no rational logical basis.

Prior to 1668 when the Italian biologist Francesco Redi proved otherwise, ignorant scientists believed that dead decaying meat could turn into living maggots. [1] They could even show you proof of their theory by leaving meat to decay. They had no idea that flies laid their eggs in the meat, producing maggots. These misled scientists are similar to modern scientists who believe in macroevolution.

Prior to the 1800’s when the French scientist Louis Pasteur disproved it, most scientists believed in the theory of spontaneous generation. [2] These brilliant “ignoramuses” believed that they had found plenty of proof that spontaneous generation occurred. But what Pasteur showed was that the dead objects already had living bacteria on or in them and dead objects did not generate into living cells.

Even if we could once in a laboratory artificially change non-living matter into living matter, this would not prove it happened in nature. Similarly, just because a scientist can clone a sheep from two eggs of sheep without a sperm of a ram does not mean that this has ever occurred in nature.

It is true that there is evolution within species. For example, breeders of caged birds can by selective breeding techniques have their birds produce babies with some additional features not found on previous varieties within that species. As stated previously, this evolution within species is called microevolution.

But there is no evidence that different species can mate with one another, thereby producing new species. For example, if you mate a horse with an ass, you obtain baby mules. But mules are infertile. So they cannot produce a new species.

You would have to have the brain of a monkey to believe in macroevolution!


Quack scientific orthodoxy


Throughout human history, there have been numerous occasions when top academics have dogmatically insisted that everyone believe various scientific theories which others later found were quack pseudo-science. Here are examples:

a)        From the time of Hippocrates (approx. 460-377 B.C.), the founder of Western medicine in ancient Greece, till the 1800’s, all medical doctors believed in the strict scientific orthodoxy of Hippocrates’ humoural theory of disease. This stupid theory taught that most disease was caused by an imbalance of four so-called humours in the human body – blood, phlegm, black bile and yellow bile. [3] Anyone who disputed this theory over those 2,200 years was regarded as a fool, but the truth was the scientific orthodoxy itself was nonsense.

b)        From ancient times up until the era of Copernicus (1473-1543 A.D.) and Galileo (1564-1642 A.D.), one major aspect of scientific orthodoxy, which even the Roman Catholic Church was deceived into following, was the idea that the Sun revolved around the Earth. The main ancient scientist who taught this theory was the pagan astronomer Ptolemy (lived 100’s A.D.).

c)        From ancient times up until the 1600’s, medical doctors, even those who were university-trained, believed that the moon and the planets influenced health and caused diseases. The founder of Greek medicine, Hippocrates and the top Roman medical doctor, Galen taught this pseudo-science. [4] It was primarily through the attacks of the Puritans in Britain in the 1600’s that the popularity of this foolishness declined.


Macroevolution, cannibalism and stealing


Another thing which shows the foolish evil nature of the theory of macroevolution is that it teaches that humans are only animals. But if humans are only animals, this would mean that it is right for humans to engage in cannibalism and stealing. Numerous animals kill and eat the members of their own kind. Examples of this are male lions and tigers.

Also, many animals will steal food from other members of their own species.


Macroevolution and humans having sex with animals


It is true that 98% of the genes in human bodies are similar to monkeys. But if we believe that sometimes in the past, monkeys or chimpanzees or apes had genetic mutations which were humans, this means these human babies were raised in the families of monkeys, chimpanzees or apes. If this happened, this means it is likely many of these human mutations when they became sexually mature had sexual intercourse with some monkeys, chimps or apes. This would be unless they happened to meet another human mutation of the opposite sex – something which in all probability would have occurred exceptionally rarely.

The logical wicked result of the above foolish reasoning is that there is nothing wrong with bestiality – humans having sex with animals.

But note God would never want any human to engage in the wicked practice of bestiality. In Leviticus 20:15-16, He commanded that those who engaged in this deserved to be killed.



Definition of naturalistic macroevolution


We can satirically define the foolish theory of naturalistic macroevolution as follows: “The first male human, Tarzan was a genetic mutation of apes. He used to engage in bestiality with all his female ape relatives. The first female human named Jane was a genetic mutation of monkeys. She used to practice bestiality with her male monkey relatives. This was until she saw Tarzan, asked him to move in and live de-facto with her and produce children. The problem was Tarzan’s ape parents were racially prejudiced against monkeys and monkey mutations and therefore did not approve of him ‘shacking up’ with an ‘animal’ like Jane.”


Definition of theistic macroevolution


Some churchgoers believe in the theory of theistic macroevolution – the idea God used macroevolution to produce the first humans. Here is a satirical definition of this theory: “God first led genetic mutation Adam to practice bestiality with his monkey female relatives and guided genetic mutation Eve to practice bestiality with her ape male relatives. Then God led Adam to find Eve, and get married, become one flesh and to produce children, even though their former monkey and ape sexual partners were also asking them in monkey and ape language to return to being their lovers.”


The assumption of a missing link – part human and part ape


Someone may argue, “But you are wrong. There were missing links – creatures who were part ape-like and part human-like, who were genetic mutations of apes and who later produced genetic mutations who were fully human.” My answer to this is:


·         Those who because of their own preconceived biases, wish to believe in macroevolution have been searching for a missing link for more than 100 years. But up till this stage, all their finds have been hoaxes. No half-human half-ape has been found.

·         This belief in a missing link is like the false belief of multitudes of ancient people in the theory that the Sun revolves around the Earth. They could even prove this latter theory to us by showing how the Sun circled across the sky.

·         This idea of a missing link is like the myth of the Phoenix. In ancient times, many people believed the Phoenix was a bird which lived for 500 years and then built a nest of cinnamon, spikenard and myrrh (“Collins New Age Encyclopedia”, Collins, London, 1963, page 843). The Phoenix then ignited the nest and died. Then from the dead body of the Phoenix, a living baby Phoenix somehow came. This baby was not the product of sexual intercourse between a male and female Phoenix.


Their “scientific evidence” was later found to be a pitiful fraud


Previously, scientific studies supposedly proved that more than 98% of the genes of chimpanzees are exactly the same as humans. Atheists and agnostics who believe in the theory of macroevolution, quoted this as supposed major proof of their theory and won many simpletons and gullible individuals to their cause.

But recent better quality scientific studies have found there are large differences between the genes of chimpanzees and humans. Recently in an article “Origin of the species not so straight forward” in the “Sydney Morning Herald” dated Thursday 27th May 2004, the science editor Deborah Smith wrote: “…Previous studies have estimated we share more than 98 per cent of our DNA with our ape cousins. But the new study is the first to make a detailed ‘letter’ by ‘letter’ comparison of the DNA sequence of a chimp chromosome, and work out the big effects of these small differences.

An international team led by Dr Asao Fujiyama of the National Institute of Informatics in Tokyo lined up human chromosome 21 against its chimp equivalent, which has more than 33 million letters of DNA.

The researchers found that the instances where one letter was substituted for another in the two species accounted for only 1.5 per cent of the genetic code.

But they were surprised to find that there were 68,000 bits of DNA, some of them containing only 30 letters, some up to 54,000 letters long, which had been either gained or lost by the human genome in the 6 million years since our evolutionary pathway diverged from that of chimpanzees.

At least 47 chimpanzee genes were found that were different enough from their human equivalents that they would produce very different proteins.

About a fifth of the chimpanzee genes studied were also switched on to a greater or lesser degree in the apes’ brains and livers than in our organs.

‘The biological consequences due to the genetic differences (between chimpanzees and humans) are much more complicated than previously speculated,’ the team concludes in the journal Nature today.

Dr Jean Weissenbach, of Genoscope, the French national centre for DNA sequencing, said the findings from this one chromosome suggested that, overall, chimpanzees could have thousands of genes that differed significantly from ours.” [5]

It is not surprising that the above science editor who states a belief in macroevolution in the above article has a picture of a chimpanzee attached to it with a caption under the picture asking the question “Distant relative or no relation?”

In her article “Differences with the relatives” in “Nature” journal, Jean Weissenbach recorded details of this comparison of human and chimpanzee genes and chromosomes: “In an independent effort, a consortium of Old World humans has now sequenced chimpanzee chromosome 22 to a degree of completion and accuracy equivalent to that of the human genome assembly in its present version. The quality of this chimp chromosome sequence is therefore good enough to allow reliable comparisons with its human counterpart (chromosome 21).

By lining up chimp chromosome 22 and human chromosome 21 and comparing them nucleotide by nucleotide, the consortium found instances in which one nucleotide was substituted for another in only about 1.44% of the sequence. The chimpanzee chromosome has been sequenced to an accuracy of less than one error in 10 bases, so sequencing mistakes account for less than 1% of the observed single-nucleotide mismatches. There is also an impressive number (68,000) of small to large stretches of DNA that have been either gained or lost (these are called insertions or deletions’, ‘indels’ for short) in one species or the other.

Given the broad similarities between chimps and humans, many researchers thought that changes that alter amino-acid sequences would not be very frequent. Surprisingly, however, the consortium found that sequence differences in the protein-coding regions of genes are not a great deal less common than in non-coding genomic regions.

The consortium could not resist making preliminary studies of the expression of the genes on human chromosome 21 and chimp chromosome 22 as well. Their analyses indicate that – looking at just two tissues – about 20% of these genes show significant variations in their expression. Extrapolation from these findings suggests that if this chromosome represents about 1% of mammalian genes, there may well be thousands of genes that either encode an altered protein or are expressed differentially in humans and chimpanzees.” [6]


Macroevolution has justified much wickedness and many murders


Because the theory of macroevolution is so foolish, it has been easy to use it to justify other evils. For example,

·         In the late 1800’s and 1900’s, many Europeans used the theory of evolution to try to justify the idea that black Africans, Pacific Islanders and Australian Aboriginals were inferior to Europeans and were more like monkeys and apes. These Europeans claimed that the process of evolution had made the Europeans a superior breed.

·         In the 1930’s and 1940’s, Adolf Hitler and his Nazi followers argued that Jews and Russians were so backward in evolutionary terms that the latter were not fully human. This idea was used to justify murdering millions of them.

·         Hitler and the Nazis also used the theory of macroevolution to argue that Germans were the most evolutionary advanced type of humans. This idea was used to justify their claim that they should conquer and rule all other countries.


Reasons why macroevolution appeals to some people


There are three main reasons why the theory of macroevolution appeals to many people:


·         First, it allows humans to imagine they are not accountable to God for the way they live their lives.

·         Secondly, it gives them a handy excuse to justify them having sex before marriage and to commit adultery while married. They argue that if many animals have multiple sex partners and humans are only animals, then having many sex partners is right.

·         Thirdly, it appeals to human pride to think they are the most superior creature on Earth with no superior God with whom to compete.


Macroevolution is a myth and not science


Macroevolution is not a science. This is even though many scientists believe in it. Instead it is a myth. Similarly, the theories that the Sun revolved around the Earth and dead meat could turn into living maggots were myths and not science. This is even though most scientists for centuries believed in these myths and taught their students it was wrong to challenge these myths.

Those who worship their “macroevolution god” will tragically find out the truth when they appear before the real God after they die.

A similar absurd pagan theory that deceived millions


In his writing “Timaeus”, the pagan Greek philosopher Plato taught his theory on how women, birds, animals, reptiles and fish began: The differences between the sexes; creation of women, birds, animals, reptiles and fish.

I think we may now claim that our original programme – to tell the story of the universe till the creation of man – is pretty well complete. The origin of the other animals can be dealt with quite shortly, and there is no need to say much about it; a brief account on the following lines seems more in keeping with the subject.

The men of the first generation who lived cowardly or immoral lives were, it is reasonable to suppose, reborn in the second generation as women; and it was therefore at that point of time that the gods produced sexual love, constructing in us and in women, a living creature itself instinct with life. This is how they did it. What we drink makes its way through the lung into the kidneys and thence to the bladder from which it is expelled by air pressure. From this channel they pieced a hole into the column of marrow which extends from the head down through the neck along the spine and which we have already referred to as ‘seed’; this marrow, being instinct with life, completed the process and finding an outlet caused there a vital appetite for emission, the desire for sexual reproduction. So a man’s genitals are naturally disobedient and self-willed, like a creature that will not listen to reason, and will do anything in their mad lust for possession. Much the same is true of the matrix or womb in women, which is a living creature within them which longs to bear children. And if it is left unfertilised long beyond the normal time, it causes extreme unrest, strays about the body, blocks the channels of the breath and causes in consequence acute distress and disorders of all kinds. This goes on until the woman’s longing and the man’s desire meet and pick the fruit from the tree, as it were, sowing the ploughland of the womb with seeds as yet unformed and too small to be seen, which take shape and grow big within until they are born into the light of day as a complete living creature.

This is how women and the female sex generally came into being. Birds were produced by a process of transformation, growing feathers instead of hair, from harmless, empty-headed men, who were interested in the heavens but were silly enough to think that visible evidence is all the foundation astronomy needs. Land animals came from men who had no use for philosophy and never considered the nature of the heavens because they ceased to use the circles in the head and followed the leadership of the parts of the soul in the breast. Because of these practices there fore-limbs and heads were drawn by natural affinity to the earth, and their fore-limbs supported on it, while their skulls were elongated into various shapes as a result of the crushing of their circles through the lack of use. And the reason why some have four feet and others many was that the stupider they were the more supports gods gave them, to tie them more closely to earth. And the stupidest of the land animals, whose whole bodies lay stretched on the earth, the gods turned into reptiles, giving them no feet, because they had no further need of them. But for the most unintelligent and ignorant of all turned into the fourth kind of creature that lives in water. Their souls were hopelessly steeped in every kind of error, and so their makers thought them unfit to breathe pure clean air, and made them inhale water, into whose turbid depths they plunged them that is the origin of fish, shell-fish and everything else that lives in water; they live in the depths as a punishment for the depth of their stupidity. These are the principles on which living creatures change and have always changed into each other, the transformation depending on the loss or gain of understanding or folly.” [7]

Note here Plato teaches that:


1.         women are grossly inferior to men. Women were supposedly re-incarnations of cowardly or immoral men.

2.         the gods made birds, animals, reptiles and fish from different types of inferior male humans. This is an example of the modern theory of theistic evolution in reverse.


Plato’s absurd theory deceived millions in ancient times just as the theory of macroevolution is fooling millions in modern times.


The silly myths of some medical scientists and the ancient Greeks


The scientists who believe in macroevolution are similar to many superstitious irrational ancient pagan Greeks. This is because the macroevolution scientists have made up the silly myth that there were half-human half-ape creatures living long ago. The superstitious ancient Greeks were also sure that there were creatures who were:


1.         half human and half horse. They were called Cenotaurs.

2.         half human and half bull. They were called Minotaurs.

3.         half men who had two legs which were vipers and who had serpent heads in place of fingers. These were called Typhons.

4.         half women and half fish. They were called Mermaids or Sirens.

5.         half men and half fish. These were called Tritons. Even in the early 1600’s, Ambroise Pare, the head surgeon of the French King believed there were creatures like these.


Pare wrote: “Of this fort there are many, especially in the sea, whose secret corners and receptacles are not pervious to men: as Tritons, which from the middle upwards are reported to have the shape of men. And the Sirenes, Nereides or Mere-maides, who (according to Pliny) have the faces of women, and scaly bodies, yea where as they have the shape of man: neither yet can the forementioned confusion and conjunction of seeds take any place here, for, as we lately said, they consist of their owne proper nature.

When Mena was President of Egypt, and walked on the bankes of Nilus, he saw a Sea-monster in the shape of a man, comming forth of the waters: his shape was just like a man even to the middle, with his countenance composed to gravity, his haires yellow, yet intermixed with some gray, his stomack bony, his armes orderly made and jointed, his other parts ended in a fish. Three daies after in the morning there was seen another Sea-monster, but with the shape or countenance of a woman, as appeared by her face, her long haire, and swollen breasts: both these monsters continues so long above water that any one might view them very well.” [8]

Dr Pare also wrote that it was possible for humans to mate with many other species and to produce beasts which were half-human and half-animal. He wrote of humans who being: “transformed by filthy lust, have not doubted to have filthy and abhominable copulation with beasts. This so great, so horrid a crime, for whose expiation all the fires in the world are not sufficient, though they, too maliciously crafty, have concealed, and the conscious beasts could not utter, yet the generated mis-shapen issue hath abundantly spoken and declared, by the unspeakable power of God, the revenger and punisher of such impious & horrible actions. For of this various and promiscuous confusion of seedes of a different kinde, monsters have been generated and borne, who have been partly men and partly beasts.[9]

For example, Pare quoted an example of a being which was supposedly half human and human dog and which was said to have been born in Europe in 1493 A.D. Pare wrote, “there was generated of a woman and a dog, an issue, which from the navel upwards perfectly resembled the shape of the mother, but therehence downwards the fire, that is, the dog.” [10]

The theory of macroevolution’s beliefs in the half-human half-ape is just as absurd.


[1] “The World Book Encyclopedia”, Volume 18, World Book Inc, Chicago, 1988, page 802.

[2] Ibid, Volume 15, page 193.

[3] “Collier’s Encyclopedia”, Volume 15, Macmillan Educational, New York, 1991, page 643.

[4] Hippocrates, “Airs, Water and Places”, 2 and 11 and Galen, “De causis procatarcticis liber”, (Book 1 Chapter 1) and “De febrium differentiis liber” (Book 1).

[5] “Sydney Morning Herald”, Thursday 27th May, 2004, Fairfax Press, Sydney, page 3.

[6] “Nature”, Volume 429, 27 May 2004, pages 353 and 355.

[7] Plato, “Timaeus”, 49, 90-92.

[8] Ambroise Pare, “Works”, London, 1634, page 1001.

[9] Ibid, page 982.

[10] Ibid.

All original work on this site is Copyright © 1994 - . Individuals may take copies of these works for the purpose of studying the Bible provided a copyright notice is attached to all copies.   Questions regarding this site should be directed to the .