Macro-evolution is the teaching that through small changes, organisms and animals can change into a different kind of “animal”, such as a primate becoming a human over long periods of time through natural selection and chance mutations.
The question I would like to answer in this article is: “Do chance mutations adequately explain how macro-evolution took place?”
The answer to this question is an emphatic, no. Chance mutations do not explain this leap from changes within a kind to changes into a completely different kind. There is no denying that mutations happen within a species. They can even be beneficial at times. They even at times are passed down to the next generation. But the fact that this happens in some instances does not prove macro-evolution to be true.
The majority of mutations are not beneficial. They usually lead to disease, birth defects, and making an animal weaker.1 Also, It has never been observed that an animal can become a completely different animal through chance mutations. Every time a mutation has been observed in dogs, the final product was a mutated dog. The same is the case with every known observable mutation. There is a burden of proof on the evolutionist to prove that such a thing can happen consistently. This does not seem plausible since it has not been observed once.
If evolution were true, it would demand millions of chance mutations that are conveniently passed to future generations without ever reverting back to its original form. Evolutionists accept macro-evolution through mutations by faith. It is only speculation.
1. from www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cfl/mutations