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?