November 17, 2010
By , El Cajon, CA
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.

Join the Discussion

This article has 3 comments. Post your own now!

earlybird_8 This work has been published in the Teen Ink monthly print magazine. said...
Nov. 26, 2010 at 4:54 pm
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 ... (more »)
Anonymous replied...
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 r... (more »)
Kelz1141 said...
Nov. 22, 2010 at 8:04 pm
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!
bRealTime banner ad on the left side
Site Feedback