Argument Against Charles Darwins Theory of Evolution Essay -- Natural

Charles Darwin proposed the theory of development to explain the origin, diversity and complexity of life. I will will contradict evolution by showing that natural picking only explains small evolutionary changes, collectively known as microevolution. Natural selection rear end non drive cosmic 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 Darwins original theory darn 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 interpretation existed. directly scientists realize that variation a deck ups 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 m ore 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. term 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 variety meat 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... ...ific experiments can not test macroevolution, there is no direct evidence to provoke 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 make use of microevolution to disembarrass macroevolution.What is the difference betwee n 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 above1.) 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 fairy-tale that is called evolution?