I found this rather old post which was, strangely enough, randomly associated with one of my blog posts. I have a bit of a long response to it, so I’ll be kind and post it here. Feel free to read the blog post, then my comments.
But, I deliberately left out “macroevolution,” or the evolution of different species from one another. It’s quite a bit harder to discuss scientifically, in my opinion, because it is limited to analysis of historical events.
Interesting to discuss it this way; I only use the terms “microevolution” and “macroevolution” to describe such concepts to the lay person. It is, frankly, not difficult at all to discuss macroevolution, because it is happening right now, all over the world, in any species with distinctive and isolated populations. All you need to do is look. Ring species make wonderful examples, but there are others. So to say it is limited ONLY to historical analysis is to indicate ignorance of modern research.
This individual then puts up the DNA sequence as “code” falsehood… Again, the sequence IS NOT THE CODE. The term “DNA code” is reserved for the sequences which are templates which produce proteins. Not all of them do, the whole thing is not code, moving along. I understand this subtlety may elude many people, but it is significant. The DNA strands are not code, the “code” is the sequence of RNA which results in a specific protein sequence.
The notion that mutations can be beneficial, dangerous, or irrelevant misses the point that a mutation can be both beneficial AND dangerous (sickle cell trait and Plasmodium).
The insertion of teleology into evolution indicates, once again, ignoring the research which indicates identical conditions and circumstances do not result in the same mutations or even evolutionary outcomes in separate populations. Sorry, but evolution is not teleological, it follows selective pressures, founder effects (sample bias), and genetic drift (also an example of sample bias), as well as a few other mechanisms like selective migration and population death due to regional destruction (read: “subspecies wiped out by a volcano or other major natural disaster”).
While this individual does seem to be genuinely educated in evolutionary biology, the way he or she is explaining these matters is quite poor, and seems mostly informed by 1970s evolutionary biology. It needs updating.