Quote:

---

Microevolution = change of genetic information.

---

Quote:

---

If you look at it from the population level then that's a shift in gene frequencies (which seems a rather complicated way of saying that there are now more new creatures than before).

---

Quote:

---

Your general definition neither states that this can or can not happen. You merely said that there are now more creatures with a specific gene than before.

---

Quote:

---

If this gene is responsible for growing gills then this means they can grow gills, if not then not.

---

Quote:

---

Remember: natural selection filters, mutation changes. If there was no change then there could be no frequency shift.

---

Do you know what gene frequencies are? It ties in with the idea of Alleles.

Let's take a creature that has two possible alleles A and a. There are a few combinations possible.

AA Aa aa

In a very small (for simplicity's sake) population it might look more like:

AA aa Aa Aa AA aa AA Aa AA aa Aa

Gene frequency is a measure of how often A or a appears. Not how often A or a is created. So let's say we have a population like this:

aa aa aa aa aa Aa AA

If we shift the gene frequency it might look more like this:

AA Aa AA Aa Aa Aa aa

Nothing new created, but we might have caused more dark moths to appear than light moths (we rebalanced the genes in the opposite direction). This is micro evolution, but it doesn't address where the dark moths appeared. They've been there all along, and in that case its just as scientific to say they were created as it is to say they evolved. That is, we don't have evidence of either conclusion.

The interesting thing is, evolutionists say that micro evolution will eventually lead to macro evolution. The problem is, the more extreme micro evolution gets, the less variety there is. For instance, if a light morph is recessive and so only appears when we get an 'aa' combination, then micro evolution might cause a population that looks like this.

AA AA AA AA Aa Aa

In this case, there are only dark moths. Micro evolution has actually managed to reduce genetic variance. Of course, this is a very basic example, but I'll give a real life example in a bit.

This leads to the large problem of evolution. Darwin was confused about micro evolution when he first observed it on the Golopagos, and evolutionists are apparently still confused by it today.

Actually, 'evolution' occurs in the creation model too. The problem is that most scientists have it going in the wrong direction (the ones who don't are labeled creationist and ignored as a crazy). Think about how much different dogs look than wolves. But they're degenerate. They are more prone to ailments (disease and physical problems), and overall they're MUCH less fit outside of the care of humans. They didn't evolve upward, and more importantly there's no new data involved in dogs. So how can they look so different, and have so much variety?

That's what happens when you shift gene frequency (micro evolution). Think about how much variety one species has to create all of these different kinds of dogs! Darwin was right when he said it looked like all of the finch species looked like they were derived from one singular animal. Here's where creationists and evolutionists part ways, though, unfortunately our path is backed by evidence, whereas the evolutionist path is paved in guesses and assumptions.

An evolutionist looks at all of the different varieties of finches and says, "Wow, they must have evolved from a more basic species, getting more complex along the way." Of course, the evidence lies in the assumption that this happened. We don't see this occur. Evolutionists just think that it had to have happened, otherwise we wouldn't see these different varieties.

A creationist looks at all the different varieties of finches and says, "Wow, they must have 'evolved' from a more generalized finch, losing variety (genetic potential) along the way." Unlike the evolutionist's assumption, ours is backed by factual observations. If a wolf can do it, why not the finches?

The gene frequency of larger and smaller beaks go different directions based on the needs of the bird in its environment. The gene frequency for a larger body shifts in one direction, while the gene frequency for smaller birds shifts in another. The gene frequency of longer beaks goes in one direction, shorter beaks in another. So on and so forth until we have the variety we see today, of course with each new species having less genetic potential than the original kind. Eventually we, or natural selection, can only selectively breed so much variety out of a kind of animal and if the pressure is too much the line simply ends. On the other hand we'll never see that finch turn into a pickle . This is what you expect us to believe, when not only is there no evidence of it, but the evidence points to you having come to the wrong conclusion about the kind of change that actually takes place.

This all takes place within the realm of micro evolution, and fits the definition like a glove, yet nothing new was created. This is why creationists know that micro evolution will never lead to macro evolution, and why the evidence backs us up. You can add creative mutations to the mix, and micro evolution would work on a creative mutation. Of course, my pet Flying Spaghetti Monster says he disagrees with you. Science isn't about guessing.

Let's do a quick test, the object is to identify which one of these is not like the others.

A). Two species of birds split from one species based on whether or not they have larger or smaller beaks.
B). Another split or splits occur over body size.
C). Another split or splits occur over plumage.
D). Another split occurs where one of the birds has grown the beginnings of gills.

Darwin's ignorance led him to believe that this variety proved that animals had evolved. Of course, he was ignorant because he didn't know about genetics like we do today, and so he thought animals could just morph in any direction they felt like as long as pressure was applied. Since then, we've only ever observed pressure causing a change within the range of the original kind. Unfortunately Darwin's ignorance still carries on today, and has managed to confuse a lot of people about the truth of biology. Its time to let go of outdated doctrine founded in ignorance so we can finally move out of this dark age of science and stop wasting our time trying to prove a dead theory.