Evolution

November 17, 2010
By Anonymous

The theory of Evolution began with a man named Charles R. Darwin. He published a book called the Origin of Species, in which he tries to explain the reason why every living thing on the earth is so diverse. The two scientists who influenced his work were Sir Charles Lyell and Thomas Malthus. Lyell led Darwin to believe that the same variations in reproduction today could be responsible for the variations in the species all over the world. “Malthus gave Darwin the idea that individuals within a species compete with one another in order to survive. This led to Darwin’s idea of natural selection” (Module #9 266).

Natural selection is the idea that there is a variation in traits and the most dominant trait continues on, eventually making that trait stand alone. One example is “Darwin’s finches.” Darwin believed that all of the different types of finches came from one common ancestor. He focused on their beaks, stating that they adapted over time depending on the environment they migrated to and what they needed to survive. He believed that the finch with the advantage would be most likely to survive. Natural selection is considered microevolution.

There are six meanings of evolution. Cosmic evolution is the origin of time, space, and matter, chemical evolution is the origin of elements, stellar and planetary evolution is the origin of stars and planets, and organic evolution is the origin of life (Hovind 2). Microevolution is the theory that natural selection can, over time, take an organism into a more specialized species of that organism, and macroevolution is the hypothesis that processes similar to those at work in microevolution can, over eons of time, transform an organism into a completely different kind of organism (Module #9 268). The first meaning of evolution is proven wrong by Newton’s First Law of Thermodynamics. This Law states that matter cannot be created or destroyed. Stellar and planetary evolution has never been proven because no one has ever seen a star or planet originate. They blow up all the time and that’s called a supernova. Also, organic evolution is just a theory and has never been completely proven. Macroevolution is just a hypothesis, which leaves microevolution. Microevolution is the only true and realistic meaning of evolution there is.
There is so much supporting evidence against macroevolution, including the geological column, paleontology, the Cambrian Explosion, and structural homology. First of all, the geological column is a model that represents a set of layers of sedimentary rock. From bottom to top, it shows different organisms fossilized in the layers of rocks as they get more and more complex. However, it must be clear that the model is an “idealized representation” of the layers of rock. There is nowhere in the world that all the layers of rock can be discovered. Only 5 % of the column is actual fossil record (Module #9 271-72). So, the reason the geological column is actually evidence against macroevolution is because the majority of it is based on assumptions, not facts.
Paleontology is the study of fossils. “For the hypothesis of evolution to be regarded as credible would require intermediate forms between species. Paleontology does not provide them” (Darwin 2). Darwin believed that if an animal descended from another animal then there should be fossils proving this. He called these intermediate links. The lack of intermediate links was what really hindered Darwin’s hypothesis. One reason scientists still believe in intermediate links, also called transitional forms, is because of what is known as punctuated equilibrium. Scientists believed that intermediate links only lived for a short time and they didn’t have enough time to fossilize. That is their reasoning for the “missing links.” Also, scientists believe that some fossils appear to be transitional forms like the Archaeopteryx. This animal is thought of, by macro evolutionists, to be half reptile-half bird. Like a bird, it has feathers, hollow bones, brain, lungs, and inner ears of a bird. Like a reptile, it possesses the teeth and claws of a reptile. However, these scientists only focus on the minor characteristics to claim it as a reptile. What they do not realize is that there are birds that had teeth that are now extinct. Also, there are birds now that have claws when they are born. So, considering these factors, this animal is not the intermediate link between a bird and reptile (Module #9 276). Another example of a “missing link” proved wrong, is Lucy. In 1974, she was found in Ethiopia by Donald Johansson. Many paleontologists thought she was human, but when examined further they found her to be an ape. They looked at key bones such as the jaw, the humorous, and the ulna/radius. All of these proved her to be an ape. Also, they examined her wrists and knuckles which also proved her to be an ape. The only questionable thing they found was the hip bone and the ankle bone. These two bones showed that the animal stood upright like a human. Many still think of Lucy as an intermediate link because they focus on these two minorities (Module #9 278).
The Cambrian Explosion is another motive against macroevolution. According to the geological column, there are only a few simple organisms found on the layer of Cambrian rock. However, in the 1900s, Charles Walcott discovered over 60,000 fossils in this layer of rock. This discovery proved textbooks wrong (Module #9 280). One last piece of evidence is what is known as structural homology. Structural homology is the study of similar structures in different species. This was once evidence for macroevolution but has been found to be evidence against it. Macroevolution shows that since animals have similar parts they must have come from a similar ancestor. However, we have chromosomes and alleles. Also, basic genetics tells us that the only way to inherit something form an ancestor is through the genetic code (Module #9 283-84).

So, as it is so clearly displayed, macroevolution is not accurate. It is just a hypothesis that cannot be proven and has been disproven many times. Then the question is: How did the world come into existence? There are two basic choices that people think of: someone made the world, or the world made itself (Hovind 2). Considering all the evidence against macroevolution, the world couldn’t have possibly created itself. It is not logical. Nothingness cannot come from nothingness; it doesn’t make any sense. That is where God comes in. The definition of universe is “uni” meaning one, and “verse” meaning spoken sentence. Genesis 1:3 says “And God said, ‘Let there be…’” It’s as simple as that. God created the earth.




Works Cited
Hovind, Kent. “Age of the Earth.” Creation Science Evolution. 29 Cummings Road. Pensacola, Florida 32503.
Module #9: Evolution: Part Scientific Theory, Part Unconfirmed Hypothesis. Apologia Educational Ministries. Anderson, IN 46016.
Darwin, Charles. (1859). "The Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation...." The Modern Library, New York.


Similar Articles

JOIN THE DISCUSSION

This article has 3 comments.


Anonymous said...
on Nov. 28 2010 at 6:30 pm
Thank you for your feedback. But, the only thing that you said that stuck out to me that I would like to reply to the comment you made about my belief  in "some book that was written a couple thousand years ago." It actually isn't as common as you make it sound. It is a collection of 66 books written by 40 different authors over a period of 2,000 years. Yet, it is one book with perfect unity and consistency throughout. Also, it has scientific accuracy through out it. For example: the roundness of the earth ("It is [God] who sits upon the circle of the earth"-Isaiah 40:22). Also, the law of increasing entropy ("Of old You founded the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands. Even they will perish, but You endure; and all of them will wear out like a garment; like clothing You will change them and they will be changed. But You are the same, and Your years will not come to an end."-Psalm 102:25-27) There are so many more examples that prove it's rare state that I would be happy to describe. So, please reconsider your opinion.

on Nov. 26 2010 at 4:54 pm
earlybird_8 BRONZE, Roberts Creek, Other
4 articles 0 photos 116 comments

Favorite Quote:
The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

Notes on Article   This is a nicely polished, well-sourced article. The only problem with it is that the logical methods and resources used are flawed. For starters, the terminology you use to describe evolution (micro/macroevolution stellar evolution and organic evolution) isn't actually official, but I'll let it slide. Here are a couple of other issues I had with the article. 1- Actually, Newton's law of thermodynamics doesn't disprove stellar evolution, because the large amounts of dust and assorted matter that are pulled together to create a star already existed. As gravity pulls the dust and rocks closer together, friction heats them up until eventually they basically explode into a big ball of burning gas (it's actually a lot more complicated, but that's the cliffs notes version). No one has seen a star be created because the process lasts longer than most civilizations, but indirect evidence suggests this to be true. 2-While yes, organic evolution hasn't been proven (we'd have to go back billions of years in the past), scientists have created environments similar to what they think the earth looked like back then. After a few weeks, the scientists can come back and they often find viruses, which are basically groups of DNA. So no, organic evolution hasn't been proven, but it comes pretty darn close. 3-Macroevolution is not just a hypothesis, it's an extrapolation of microevolution, and as you deem the latter to be accurate, that means that you must also believe in the former. Most of your objections to macroevolution are based on the premise that somehow it would be possible to have a sample of every species that has ever existed embedded somewhere in a rock. The fact is, it takes a huge amount of luck for fossils to form, and the odds of a plant or animal being preserved are very low.  4-You appear to be misinformed about intermediate links. Let us start with archaeopteryx. It was a transition between a bird and a reptile, but as it had more reptilian characteristics, or at least because its reptilian characteristics were more prominent than its avian ones, it is classified as a reptile. Yes, there are birds born with claws and teeth. There were lots of intermediaries between reptiles and birds, not just archaeopteryxes. They were a more famous link, but many reptiles that took on avian characteristics went on to evolve into birds. And as for Lucy, it is those "minorities" that make her an intermediate link between apes and humans. She wasn't human yet, but she wasn't quite an ape either. That's sort of the definition of an intermediate link. 5-I'm not going to say anything about the Cambrian explosion, because you don't use it to make any points against evolution. Yes, scientists found out that there were lots of fossils in it. They realized they'd miscounted. How does that effect evolution's veracity? 6-Yes, generally animals that share characteristics have a similar ancestor. And yes, we do indeed have chromosomes and alleles. Did it not occur to you that similar alleles can evolve independently? Mutations during meiosis can result in a new type of gene or allele being produced, but that mutation is not limited to one occurrence. 7-While no one knows exactly how the universe started, since it would be pretty much impossible to go that far back in time, there are lots of theories. I personally prefer to invest most of my attention in the ones that have been created in the last couple centuries and have actual evidence going for them, but I won't stop you from believing in some book that was written a couple thousand years ago. Don't get me wrong, I think that you did a good job writing this and it obviously took a lot of effort. I just also think that a lot of the points you make about evolution are incorrect.

KellyR GOLD said...
on Nov. 22 2010 at 8:04 pm
KellyR GOLD, Richmond, Virginia
14 articles 0 photos 258 comments

Favorite Quote:
We don't read and write poetry because it's cute. We read and write poetry because we are members of the human race. And the human race is filled with passion. And medicine, law, business, engineering, these are noble pursuits and necessary to sustain life. But poetry, beauty, romance, love, these are what we stay alive for.

Though I think you make some fantastic points and I agree with you... it was a tad boring and din't keep my focus. If you want to prove a point make it a little relatable. Otherwise nice job!


SciArc

MacMillan Books

Aspiring Writer? Take Our Online Course!