Evolutionists will often use the word, "micro-evolution," which is an interesting form of equivocation. This equivocation, using the word, "micro-evolution," is a deliberate attempt to deceive. The deceiving term, micro-evolution is used to try to make the student think that two unrelated processes are related. The way this is done is to use the word deceitfully in a way that encompasses both of the unrelated processes. What they are deceitfully calling micro-evolution is actually simply the designed-in but limited ability to adapt. Read "15 Questions for Evolutionists" for more on this.

In Michael Ruse's 1982 book titled, "Darwinism Defended: Guide to Evolution Controversies," very little of the book deals with Darwinism (one kind of an animal becoming another kind of animal). Every single example given in the book is an example of minor variations within a certain kind of animal, but no corn turns into something else, no fruit fly turns into something else, and no other kind of animal or plant turns into any other kind of animal or plant. There is not a single example of Darwinism in the book that is titled Darwinism defended. Instead, to book deals with minor variations which is not any part of the controversy. The Alters's 2001 book that was titled "Defending Evolution in the Classroom: A Guide to the Creation/Evolution Controversy," in like manner spends fully 99% of the books pages discussing minor adaptations--which are not any part of the controversy--and in the 1% of the book that speaks of what they call, "Macroevolution," the entire argument is rooted in circular reasoning such as the following: "Likewise, humans did not directly observe the evolution of the dinosaurs, but their evolution is nonetheless considered to be scientific fact." That is circular reasoning. Interestingly, there is not a single line about the origin of the species in Darwin's book that is titled, The Origin of the Species.

There are two unrelated processes. One of the processes is the process of variation by using the incredible amount of information in the DNA molecule, but the use of existing, inherited information is by no means evolution, nor could it possibly lead to anything new since it is inherited information from the parent that is allowing the variation. This process of variation is in no way related to the process of mutations.

The second process is the process of mutation. Mutations are almost never beneficial and they never, so far as scientific research has shown, add new innovative genetic information of the type needed for even the smallest advance in so-called molecules-to-man evolution to the cell.

The issue is not whether a mutation is ever beneficial. The issue is that time and chance CANNOT add information or organization to a DNA molecule. There is no known mutation that has ever been known to add information and organization to the DNA of any cell of any animal. Information and organization would have to have taken place if evolution were to have been anything other than a silly story, but random events never produce organization and information, just as rocks never roll up hills unless some outside force rolls them up the hill. Yet, evolutionists claim that information has been added over millions of years, and they will try to confuse variations with mutations to muddy the water. Further, they demand that everyone believe their story. They are, in fact, quite upset to find out that almost no one does accept naturalistic evolution as taught in the schools.

(Read the latest science on the subject: Without Excuse by Werner Gitt, a description of the scientific Laws of Universal Information. See also: Information Theory Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4. Here is another interesting article.) More is constantly being learned about information and about the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Evolutionists tend to hide in the weeds of the unknown with an argument from ignorance: "If you can't prove, by empirical science, that evolution is impossible, then it happened." By empirical science alone, we can only prove probabilities. The probabilities show the Big-Bang-Billions-of-Years-No-Flood-Molecules-to-Man story to be a bazaar hypothesis, a story that is so improbable that it should not be considered. However, empirical science is not a tool that can prove anything to be true or false absolutely. For absolute proof, we have revelation. (See Basic and Concise Guide to Practical, Useful Logic and Reasoning). God says that He created everything. He is the One Who enforces the laws of nature. He is the One Who will judge all of us in the end. We know that because we know Him presonally through the indwelling Presence of Jesus Christ and the moment-by-moment instruction of the Holy Spirit.

In fact, every instance of supposed increase of information that is used by Evolution's evangelists is an example of NO increase in information.  Evolutionist's claims for adding information fall into three categories.  These are the 3 Rs of Evolution: Rearrange information, Remove information, and Ruin information.  See: Is Antibiotic Resistance Really Due to Information Gain? The 3 Rs of evolution

This diagram shows that every change is going in the wrong direction.  Evolutionists try to imply that the changes that can be observed are micro-evolution.  Creationists sometimes argue that those changes have limits, so they could never have one kind of living thing change into another kind of living thing--which is true but it misses the point.  Since the argument misses the point, it is unconvincing to an Evolutionist because it doesn't answer their story.  They have a story that says that evolution takes place so slowly that large changes cannot be seen but only small changes can be seen.  This must be answered by saying that the changes are all going in the wrong direction.  The changes are all going away from evolution.

The train analogy works well.  The evolution train is supposed to go from Missouri in central U.S. to California (evolution) on the West Coast.  However, it can never get their since the train is bound for New York (opposite of evolution) on the East Coast.  In our analogy, the West Coast would be evolution and the East Coast would be deterioration, as The Second Law of Thermodynamics, the Theory of Information, and all that we can observe of changes in living things from generation to generation would predict.  The train is going the wrong direction in the track.  It is not headed toward more information, that is, evolution.  It is headed toward a loss of information, that is, destruction and eventual extinction--the opposite of evolution.

The use of the term, micro-evolution deceptively implies that small variations add up to large variations, which is a diversion from the point. The point is not the number of variations or the size of the variations. The point is that mutations do not add information. They remove information. Evolution would require that they add the right information so that the resulting changes to the creature can be "selected" for by nature.

NOTE:  It would be good for believers to avoid the word micro-evolution completely.  When an evolutionists uses it, correct them: "Oh; you mean information LOSING processes, not micro-evolution.  Micro-evolution would be an incremental gain in information, but you are talking about observed processes, and we only observe information LOSS."  You might do well to always use the term, "information-losing processes," or "processes that rearrange, remove, or ruin genetic information."  That is not such a nice short term as, "micro-evolution," but it is not misleading either.

It should be obvious to anyone that natural selection plus mutation has no mechanism to add information to anything. It only selects from what is already available and destroys what is already there. Evolution has a very real information problem.

And even the term, selection, is a tricky word. Selection implies intelligence, so the word should never be applied to something while implying that the process is something that is not being carried out be someone or something that has intelligence.  Sometimes, Evolutionists actually try to transform Natural Selection into molecules-to-man Evolution.  They also try to confuse people into believing that small adaptations (calling this micro-evolution, which is a deceiving term.) add up to molecules-to-man Evolution.  At other times, Natural Selection is written about as if it were an intelligent all-powerful god that thinks things through and does them. A more scientifically accurate term would be "natural elimination."   It is illegitimate to use Natural Selection to support Evolution.  Natural Selection supports a young Earth and a Creator.