ere now black. This is a great example of microevolution. But can this experiment be extended to prove that macroevolution is possible? No. The moth's color variation is not an example of a new gene evolving. It is an example of an existing gene being optimized in response to a changing habitat. Darwin's last observation should read something like this:5) ... through numerous, successive, slight modifications, driven by natural selection, the descendants of animals continually adapt.Through these adaptions lifE is optimized. These adaptions maximize variation and can bring about significant change. Unfortunately, since scientific experiments can not test macroevolution, there is no direct evidence to suggest that the processes behindmicroevolution can also bring about the evolution of new structures or genes. In other words, microevolution should not be extended to support macroevolution.While punctuated equilibria may save evolution from the fossil record, it cannot save the theory from the more serious flaws. For example, the success of evolution is based entirely upon the ability of scientists to use microevolution to justify macroevolution.What is the difference between microevolution and macroevolution? Microevolution does not require new structures or organs. Macroevolution does. This implies that microevolution does not create new genes whereas macroevolution requires new genes.Two things should be clear from the examples offered above:1.) Microevolution can bring about very large changes.2). It is easy to make the same mistake that Darwin made. That is microevolution can accomplish a lot, so why not use it to explain macroevolution?For these reasons explained above, how can any person with a sound mind still believe in the outlandish fairytale that is called evolution?...
