Page 72 - The Errors the American National Academy of Sciences

The Errors of the American National Academy of Sciences

This is in fact accepted by evolutionists. For this reason, they de-
fine variations within a species and instances of speciation by division
of a population into two parts as "microevolution." Microevolution is
used in the sense of variations occurring within an already existing
species. Yet the inclusion of the term "evolution" in this description is a

deliberate deception. There is no evolutionary process here at all, not
even a "micro" one. This process merely distributes genetic informa-
tion that already exists within the genetic pool among a different com-
bination of individuals.
The questions that need to be answered are these: How did the
living categories first come into being? How did the kingdoms of the
Monera (bacteria), Protista (amoebas), Fungi (mushrooms), Plantae,
and Animalia come into being? How did the higher taxonomical cate-
gories of families (cats and dogs), orders (carnivores and primates),

classes (birds and mammals), and phyla (chordates, arthropods, and
molluscs) first come into being? These are the issues that evolutionists
need to be able to explain.
Evolutionists describe their theories concerning the origin of these
basic categories as "macroevolution." It is actually macroevolution which
is intended when the theory of evolution is referred to. That is because
the genetic variations known as microevolution are an observed biologi-

cal phenomenon accepted by everyone, but one which has nothing to do
with evolution itself (in spite of the name), as we have seen above. As far
as the claim of macroevolution is concerned, there is no evidence for it at
all, either in observational biology or in the fossil record.
There is an absolutely essential point to be made here. Those with
insufficient knowledge in this area may be deceived into thinking that
"Since microevolution takes place in a very short space of time,
macroevolution could also occur given tens of millions of years." Some
evolutionists do indeed make this mistake, or else attempt to use this

70