Almost everything creationists say or write about evolution is ultimately some sort of misrepresentation of science, but there is a special grouping of misrepresentations dealing with
microevolution and macroevolution specifically. This is because questions about microevolution and macroevolution lie at the heart of creationist arguments against evolution today. Only the most foolhardy creationist denies the reality of microevolution, but they try to deny that this is "real" evolution. They insist that only macroevolution is real evolution and that there is some essential difference in how microevolution and microevolution occur.
If we can't see it occurring, then it's not real
The most basic creationist misrepresentation of macroevolution is that we can't observe macroevolution occurring and if we can't observe it, then it's not science and isn't real. This is an ironic position to take because Christian apologists misrepresent atheists as arguing "we can't see God, therefore God doesn't exist." Apologists "respond" to this falsehood by pointing out that there is nevertheless evidence of God. Creationist Christians, though, won't accept such reasoning with macroevolution. It is wrong that science can only study phenomena we directly and personally observe. They are also very wrong to argue that if we haven't directly observed something then it can't be true or real. They key is the presence of real, reliable, and consistent evidence — and we have an overwhelming amount of such evidence for macroevolution.Macroevolution has never been observed
As bad as it is to make the invalid argument that some phenomenon has to be directly observed to be treated as real, it's also an argument based on a false premise: macroevolution has been observed. Most aspects of macroevolution take place over thousands and millions of years, far too long for any one human to observe over their lifetime. The most basic aspect of macroevolution, though, is speciation: the development of a new species. This too can take a long time but it has nevertheless been observed. Some creationists respond by simply denying against all evidence that speciation has been observed; others react by denying that speciation really is an example of macroevolution.Macroevolution is cats turning into dogs
Creationists who try to deny that speciation is an example of macroevolution and thus of evolution itself try to argue that macroevolution only occurs on some undefined, mysterious level above species which they label "kind." Sometimes "kind" seems synonymous with species but other times it seem equated with family or genus. Rarely do creationists try to explain what "kind" is in any scientific sense because it's a concept they get from the book of
Genesis in the Bible; it has no scientific basis whatsoever. Instead, they just keep repeating slogans like "cats don't turn into dogs," as if the only legitimate example of macroevolution would be a cat evolving into a dog or a fish evolving into a zebra. No scientist uses "macroevolution" this way and that's why it's a blatant misrepresentation.
Biblical "kinds" never change to another kind
It is difficult to underestimate the importance of the concept of "kind" to creationism - even to forms of creationism like
Intelligent Design which deliberately avoid any explicit references to biblical concepts like this. Because the idea of "kind" is purely religious, lacking any scientific basis whatsoever, the appearance of this term is an immediate demonstration that a person's argument is ultimately unscientific. It is not possible to make a legitimately scientific argument against or about macroevolution or microevolution with unscientific, biblical concepts like "kinds." Believers are free to make theological arguments with such concepts, but once they introduce them to scientific debates they cannot avoid misrepresenting and misunderstanding the science.
Microevolution is mere adaptation to the environment
Creationist efforts to deny macroevolution frequently depend on pretending that there is some fundamental difference between macroevolution and microevolution. This goal is advanced by misrepresenting just how important microevolution really is. Creationists effectively denigrate it as "mere adaptation" to the environment, as if it weren't a remarkable event with great power to alter a species over time. The key thing to remember is that adaptations don't happen in retrospect — individuals don't encounter a new environment and then change to fit it. Instead, mutations occur all the time and, with a bit of luck, some of those mutations help individuals survive an environment newly encountered.Microevolution isn't real evolution
Creationists want to deny evolution but they can't deny the obvious fact that animals can and do change. Their "solution" is to deny that microevolution is "real" evolution — but this is little more than a lie. Evolution is defined in biology as the change in allele frequency in a population over time. Thus even something as simple as a change in the frequency of blue eyes qualifies as evolution — and it is indeed "real" evolution. When creationists insist that it's only evolution if the changes are great enough to produce a new species, they are blatantly misrepresenting science, biology, and evolution.Macroevolution is new information; microevolution is shuffling genes around
There are a lot of misunderstandings and misrepresentations packed into this short statement. First, moving genes around can produce macroevolution if it produces a new species: individuals that can't mate with their ancestors and produce fertile offspring. Second, "information" is left deliberately vague here. Is information in the presence of a single gene, or how multiple genes are ordered? If the latter, then then introduction of a new gene is only "information" because of the new sequence of genes produced and this means that a new sequence produced by shuffled genes is also new information. Third, we don't need the supernatural to explain the introduction of new genes: we know it happens when bacteria and viruses insert their own genes into the DNA of a host.
