|
_Darwin _
By: Pete Rock
Charles Darwin proposed the theory of evolution to explain the origin,
diversity and complexity of life. I will will disprove evolution by showing
that natural selection only explains small evolutionary changes, collectively
known as microevolution. Natural selection cannot drive large evolutionary
changes, macroevolution. I will also show that the primordial soup, in which
life supposedly evolved, did not exist. Neo-Darwinism incorporates the
discoveries of modern science into Darwin's original theory while leaving the
basic beliefs intact. Darwin proposed that individuals with favorable traits
are more likely to survive and reproduce. Darwin called this process natural
selection. Darwin did not understand how or why variation existed. Today
scientists realize that variation arises through random changes (called
mutations) to existing genes. Genes are the chemicals that determine the
traits and characteristics 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 small
successive 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
other words, natural selection does not drive evolution, and the hypothesis 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 selection preserves
favorable variations at the expense of less favorable variations. This process
optimizes existing genes. Natural selection forces animals and plants to
adapt. Microevolution happens, and it has been observed in numerous scientific
experiments. The real question is not whether or not microevolution happens.
It does, but can microevolution be extended to explain large evolutionary
changes? Such changes require new genes. Natural selection only optimizes
existing genes: If a gene does not exist, it cannot provide a selective
advantage. Natural selection only operates on existing genes. When an existing
gene tries to evolve into a new gene, the evolving gene must provide some
selective advantage, before natural selection can drive the transition. (The
declaration of many evolutionists that natural selection drives the transition
every step of the way, implies that the evolving gene must perform its new
function before it evolves into the new gene. This is like saying a bird with
no wings can fly.) Random chance not natural selection is responsible for the
evolution of new genes. Until an evolving gene offers some competitive
advantage, natural selection is out of the picture. If evolution is not a
viable theory, then why is it generally accepted by modern science and why is
it often taught as a proven fact in high school and college? To answer this
question, let us take a trip back in time to the late 1800's. Darwin observed
birds on the Galapagos islands over 100 years ago, and the variation that he
saw led him to the theory of evolution. What exactly did Darwin propose, and
why was it accepted by scientists? Darwin's theory is outlined below: 1)
Variation exists within members of the same species. 2) Variation can be
inherited. That is parents pass on their traits to their offsprinG. 3) In
nature, animals struggle to survive. 4) Natural selection is a direct
consequence of the first three observations. Darwin proposed that individuals
with favorable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce. In other
words, nature selects life with favorable characteristics and preserves it. 5)
Darwin documented the small changes that can occur from one generation to the
next. He then proposed that through numerous, successive, slight
modifications, driven by natural selection, the descendants of simple animals
evolved into complex animals. The first four observations are correct. The
last one is flawed. Darwin observed and documented examples of small
evolutionary changes (microevolution) and used these to explain large
evolutionary changes (macroevolution). While this was poor judgement on his
part, the idea has caught on. Modern science routinely sites examples of
microevolution as proof that macroevolution is possible. A good example of
extending microevolution to explain macroevolution is the peppered moth. So
what is a peppered moth? This moth lives in England and it can either be black
or speckled gray. During the industrial revolution, the trees that the moth is
rested on during the day changed from lichen covered gray to soot colored
black. The population of gray moths which dominated before the industrial
revolution decreased as the population of the black moths increased. The cause
of this change was linked to predation by birds. Before the revolution, the
grey moths had a selective advantage because they blended in with the grey
lichen. Birds had a difficult time seeing these moths. After the revolution,
the black moths had a selective advantage, because the trees were now black.
This is a great example of microevolution. But can this experiment be extended
to prove that macroevolution is possible? No. The moth's color variation is
not an example of a new gene evolving. It is an example of an existing gene
being optimized in response to a changing habitat. Darwin's last observation
should read something like this: 5) ... through numerous, successive, slight
modifications, driven by natural selection, the descendants of animals
continually adapt. Through these adaptions lifE is optimized. These adaptions
maximize variation and can bring about significant change. Unfortunately,
since scientific 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 save 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
macroevolution. What is the difference between microevolution and
macroevolution? Microevolution does not require new structures or organs.
Macroevolution does. This implies that microevolution does not create new
genes whereas macroevolution requires new genes. Two things should be clear
from the examples offered above: 1.) Microevolution can bring about very large
changes. 2). It is easy to make the same 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
sound mind still believe in the outlandish fairytale that is called evolution?
Word Count: 1188
|
