When reviewing Science texts, some good non-evolutionists distinguish
"micro-evolution" below the species level (which they
accept) from "macro-evolution" above the species level
(which they reject). Evolutionists seldom stress this
Instead, evolutionists say all "change over time" or "descent
with modification" is evolution. This lets evolution mean two
different things: shifts in gene frequency (e.g., peppered
moths), and increases in net genetic complexity — one
term for two separate concepts.
Why do evolutionists so define evolution? For the free-rider effect. Development of
molecules to man gains plausibility by association if it falls under
the same evolutionary rubric as simple genetic drift. But consenting
to such forensic sleight-of-hand is folly.
It is folly tactically and scientifically. It puts you on the defensive
playing your foes' game, which you should avoid. It spares
evolutionists' weakness, which you should exploit. Evolution
involves increased net genetic complexity. Subspeciation does not.
Subspeciation is not "micro-evolution." Pretending that it is, rewards
evolutionists for definitional bait-and-switch. They will claim
"macro-evolution" is just "micro-evolution"
extended. If they define the terms of debate, your neck is in their noose.
Evolution requires increased net genetic complexity: between the first cell and
Einstein there must be new genes. This definition stresses the
failure to identify a mechanism for increasing net genetic
complexity, which lets you control the discussion.
Newtonianism without the mechanism of gravity
would have been nothing.
lacks a mechanism to increase net genetic complexity.
Therefore evolution is nothing.