Comparing Leonard Brand's Argument With The Macroevolution Theory

I was raised as a Seventh-day Adventist. I do not remember the first time I heard the story of creation, but if there something I am sure of, is how this belief has shaped my worldview. All my life, I have heard how some Adventists tend to make fun of the theory of evolution. As an Adventist, I believe that some of the theories of evolution are true, like microevolution and speciation. However, I strongly disagree with the macroevolution theory. Macroevolution is commonly recognized as evolution above the species level and it is also known as major phenotypic changes that result in the origin of higher taxa. According to Leonard Brand in his book, Faith, History, and Earth history, “The theory of macroevolution maintains that over billions

Epigenetics, is the study of traits that change in the phenotype without a change in genotype. They control the expression of genes without changing the DNA. Environmental signals are most likely to initiate these epigenetic changes. Studies have shown how some type of bacteria mutation occurs only when there is selective pressure for the phenotype, which means that tis cannot be a random mutation; perhaps it shows how there is an epigenetic system in charge of activating genes in response to the environment. In other words, the bacteria have the information necessary to detect what is needed and what can be turned off. Certainly, this implies that someone who understands how this whole process work, must have created

Certainly, homoplasy does not agree with phylogenetic trees because many animals share the same characteristics, meaning they do not come from a common ancestor. In other words, a homoplasy might be a simple trait created by an intelligent designer in two different species or groups that are not related to each other. This one leads to confusion because it brings questions like who evolved from whom? One of the most famous evolutionist scientists, Darwin, came up to the conclusion that it is easier to explain the similarity of structure among organisms by agreeing that all vertebrates descended from a common ancestor than by agreeing they come from an intelligent designer. However, it can be seen in the fossil record how fossils have no transition between them. The phyla and classes found in the fossil record have no such thing as a transition. Furthermore, this idea can be explained by an interventionist by the theory that an intelligent designer used the same blueprint to create different