Micro and macro Evolution are both nonexistent processes

Microevolution is considered small-scale changes within a species, which, according to evolutionists, accumulate over time and lead to macroevolution, resulting in the hypothetical transformation of one species into another different one.The terms micro evolution and macro evolution were first introduced by Russian biologist Yuri Filipchenko in 1927. And the concept that microevolution serves as the raw material for macroevolution was first used by Filipchenko's student, Theodosius Dobzhansky, in the 1930s in his book "Genetics and the Origin of Species." He, along with a few other evolutionists, sought to reconcile Darwin's theory of evolution, which was based only on superficial transmission, with emerging discoveries in genetics, forming the basis of modern synthesis, which is still commonly taught as the theory of evolution. These adherents of modern synthesis associated small-scale changes that happen within species with micro evolution and big-scale changes that, according to them, turn one species, for example, fish, into reptiles with macroevolution.

However, these small-scale changes are actually observable variations arising from different combinations of preexisting genetic information present in the DNA of living beings; it is a biological phenomenon that has nothing to do with evolution. For example, children are always slightly different from their parents but remain fundamentally the same species as their parents. An enormous number of such variations have occurred in humans over generations, but these variations have always been limited and never resulted in humans evolving into any other species.

This biological phenomenon also extends across all species and can be narrower or wider in some species, depending on the extent of geographic isolation of the population, which makes some genes become more dominant in that particular population and recessive in other populations of that species. Dogs, for example, display significant variations in size, coat type, and physical features. Yet, regardless of these differences, all dogs are still dogs and part of the same species. No matter how much interbreeding happens between these variations of dogs, they will not turn into horses or birds. 

Biologist Edward S. Deevey, an evolutionist himself, also acknowledged this fact, stating that remarkable things have been achieved through crossbreeding, but wheat is still wheat and not, for instance, grapefruit.

The evolutionary claim that these microchanges accumulate over time and lead to different species is, therefore, unfounded and lacks scientific support. Variations within species are bound by the genetic information already present in their DNA. These variations do not generate new genetic information necessary for one species to evolve into another. Also when there is no such thing as microevolution, the foundation for macroevolution collapses entirely. So neither microevolution nor macroevolution ever happens. Nor is there any link between them; all that happens is a recombination of preexisting genes within populations, and that stays within the limits of genetic information already present in their total gene pool.

This conclusion was also clearly reached during the most important symposium held in Chicago in 1980, which was attended by 150 evolutionists. Roger Lewin, reporting on the conference, stated that the central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying micro evolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution, the answer can be given as a clear No.

Therefore, those who are taken in by the misconception that microevolution is true, must know that the word is being deceptively used to represent a natural biological phenomenon as an evolutionary process, just so the theory of evolution can be kept alive, which in reality has lost all its credibility because of having no proof of any evolutionary process. The theory of evolution is being kept alive solely because it provides another materialistic explanation that belies God, even if that comes at the cost of distorting scientific findings. And it is surely an injustice of a grave level to science and to students who are taught this false theory in the name of science!