Disproving the Theories of Evolution

Disproving the Theories of Evolution Abstract Natural selection is one of the numerous theories that attempt to explain the evolution of living things from their primitive origins to the more advanced organisms existing today. At its core, this theory supports the notion that only the strongest organisms survive in a changing environment while their weak counterparts die off. Nevertheless, various circles regard the evolutionary theory by natural selection as practically impossible. Since its conception, proponents of the theory have defended it with the help of serious misinformation and propaganda. However, the theory of evolution has been discredited entirely as being scientifically invalid by such fields as paleontology, genetics, biochemistry, and microbiology. Numerous findings continue to reveal that evolution never happened, is devoid of tangible scientific evidence, and is incompatible with the truth. One such area is the creationist perspective of the origin of life and the universe. Creationism provides the indication that the universe is the work of an Omniscient Creator. Scientific communitys Opposition Evolution has been and continues to be not only one of the most widely debated issue but also one of the most controversial. Some quarters have a serious problem with calling the Darwinist evolution a theory for the reason that it lacks testable explanations for observable occurrences (Isaak). The Darwinian theory of evolution postulates the idea that the planetary species arose through descent with progression and modification from a single common ancestor by the process of natural selection. While this presumption may contain some element of truth, it has not received complete acceptance across the entire spectrum of the society since evolutionary ideas first came to prominence in the early parts of the 19th century (Luskin). The first opposition to its tenets comes mainly from the scientific community, which has not found any past or present scientific evidence to validate the claims of Darwin. Moreover, todays criticisms and denials also come from all quarters in various forms su ch as creationism, neo-creationism, and intelligent design. Even though several points exist on either side of the creationism versus evolution argument, notwithstanding the gaps on both sides of the divide, it becomes apparent that the theory of evolution has some serious fundamental flaws. Creationism is the belief that concept and design require a creator (Sarfati and Mathews). When applied to detecting design in the universe and life, this principle becomes a more reasonable explanation to believe in a higher power as the Creator or Designer of both (Sarfati and Mathews). Unlike the concept of evolution, which remains unproven and continues to lack even the slightest experimental or observational support, the creationist argument is sound because it argues against a set of misunderstandings about evolution that people are right to consider ludicrous (Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini). For this reason, a large part of the society is likely to embrace creationism. Moreover, various religious denominations already propagate the belief in a higher power, making creationism more intellectually and socially palatable to a majority of people, both scholars and lay audiences. A related issue is the tendency of individuals to identify with things, beliefs, or concepts that exemplify the best of humanity or portray humans as special. In this regard, creationism hits the nail on the head as it conceives the advent of humankind as a deliberate, personal, well-thought out, and loving process. In contrast, evolution paints a grim picture of a random, impersonal, and d etached process that does not appeal to the moral and spiritual sensibilities of many people, hence its unpopularity. The first claim against natural selection, the central premise upon which the theory of evolution rests, is that it lacks the power to be responsible for all the variability seen in all the innumerable forms of life. A close inspection shows that neither natural selection nor mutation has any evolutionary force or gives the slightest support to the notion that living things can evolve and gradually turn into a new species (Yahya). Natural selection predicts the survival of organisms possessing the most appropriate characteristics for their natural habitats and the extinction of those that lack the advantages (Rennie). For instance, in a herd of deer threatened by wolves, those who run fastest survive and those who do not run swiftly are hunted down and eliminated resulting in a herd of swift-running deer. However, no matter how long the process lasts, the deer will a lways remain a deer and never another species. For that reason, natural selection cannot cause the development of a new species, much less new life forms (Yahya). Competition for survival The second criticism of evolution driven by the process of natural selection concerns the assertion that the living world is in a perpetual competition for survival, something Darwinism calls the survival of the fittest (Yahya). Several reliable observations continue to reveal that organisms, particularly those at more advanced levels such as humans and dolphins display solidarity and social behavior that can be defined as cooperation. Therefore, the survival of the fittest might not be any more superior or significant than the survival of the luckiest (Yahya). The weakness of evidence The third criticism against evolution is that several lines of evidence for Darwinian evolution and common ancestry are weak. Firstly, there is the failure of development of biology in explaining why vertebrate embryos start diverging from the very beginning of development. Secondly, DNA and molecular evidence paint conflicting pictures about the grand tree of life (Luskin). Lastly, available fossil records do not provide proof for the Darwinian evolution (Luskin). The evidence of small-scale changes commonly paraded by evolutionists such as the slight variations in the color of wings of peppered moths or the size of finch beaks are isolated cases of microevolution and are not evidential proof for macroevolution (Rennie). Conclusion Even though evolutionists portray the theory of evolution as a scientific fact, various findings for the several years separating Charles Darwin and the present day has utterly disapproved this theory. Darwinism is inconsistent with the truth, and its principles of natural selection and mutation have been shown to lack any evolutionary power to create new species. The more the details of nature and scientific studies have been revealed, the more extraordinary characteristics of life in its diversity have been discovered that can never be explained in terms of natural selection. Works Cited Fodor, Jerry, and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini. Survival of the Fittest Theory: Darwinisms Limits. New Scientist, 3 Feb. 2010, www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527466.100-survival-of-the-fittest-theory-darwinisms-limits?full=true. Accessed 20 Feb. 2017. Isaak, Mark. Five Major Misconceptions About Evolution. TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy, 1 Oct. 2003, www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html. Accessed 20 Feb. 2017. Luskin, Casey. Punctuated Equilibrium and Patterns from the Fossil Record. Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center, 9 Sept. 2004, www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1232. Accessed 20 Feb. 2017. Rennie, John. 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense. Scientific American, 1 July 2002, Nature America, Inc.. www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/. Accessed 20 Feb. 2017. Sarfati, Jonathan, and Michael Mathews. Refuting Evolution 2 Chapter 4: Argument: Natural Selection Leads to Speciation. Creation | Creation Ministries International, Creation Ministries, creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-4-argument-natural-selection-leads-to-speciation#noteref. Accessed 20 Feb. 2017. Yahya, Harun. Confessions of the Evolutionists. Global Publishing, www.muslim-library.com/dl/books/English_CONFESSIONS_OF_THE_EVOLUTIONISTS.pdf. Accessed 20 Feb. 2017.