Argument Against Charles Darwins Theory of Evolution Essay -- Natural

Charles Darwin proposed the theory of phylogeny to explain the origin, diversity and complexity of life. I will will confute growing by showing that native selection unless explains lessened evolutionary changes, collectively known as microevolution. indispensable selection tidy sum non beat large evolutionary changes, macroevolution. I will similarly show that the cardinal soup, in which life supposedly evolved, did not exist.Neo-Darwinism incorporates the discoveries of modern science into Darwins pilot film theory while leaving the basic beliefs intact. Darwin proposed that individuals with favorable traits are more(prenominal) likely to survive and reproduce. Darwin c ei thered this process graphic selection. Darwin did not understand how or why chromosomal mutation existed. Today scientists realize that variation arises by means of hit-or-miss changes (c exclusivelyed mutations) to existing genes. Genes are the chemicals that determine the traits and characteri stics of animals and plants. Every trait has one or more gene associated with it. Thus, natural selection provides the animals and plants with the best genes. Supporters of neo-Darwinism believe that natural selection operating upon random variation gave rise rise to all animals and plants. While the source of variation is random, the direction of evolution is not. In effect, natural selection removes chance, and it makes the theory of evolution plausible. If neo-Darwinism is correct then numerous weensy victoryive changes guided by natural selection gave rise to all animals and plants.I will prove that natural selection is not a creative process. Its primary function is to preserve the status quo. Thus, new structures and organs must arise through chance. Natural selection can only preserve and optimize these new structures and organs after they evolve through chance. In different words, natural selection does not drive evolution, and the venture on which neo-Darwinism is based is flawed.Natural selection drives microevolution. Microevolution is defined as evolution involving small changes. Microevolution does not require the evolution of new structures or organs, Therefore, microevolution does not involve the creation of new genes.Changes to existing genes (mutations) result in variation. Natural selection acts on this variation and preserves the best. So while the variation may be random, the process of microevolution is not.Natural... ...ific experiments can not test macroevolution, there is no direct evidence to suggest that the processes behind microevolution can also bring about the evolution of new structures or genes. In other words, microevolution should not be extended to support macroevolution.While punctuated equilibria may proceed evolution from the fossil record, it cannot save the theory from the more serious flaws. For example, the success of evolution is based entirely upon the ability of scientists to use microevolution to justify macr oevolution.What is the variety between microevolution and macroevolution? Microevolution does not require new structures or organs. Macroevolution does. This implies that microevolution does not name new genes whereas macroevolution requires new genes.Two things should be clear from the examples offered above1.) Microevolution can bring about very large changes.2). It is easy to make the aforesaid(prenominal) mistake that Darwin made. That is microevolution can accomplish a lot, so why not use it to explain macroevolution?For these reasons explained above, how can any person with a undecomposed mind still believe in the outlandish fairy-tale that is called evolution?