Argument Against Charles Darwins Theory of Evolution Essay -- Natural

Charles Darwin proposed the theory of evolution to develop the origin, change and complexity of heart. I result will disprove evolution by showing that natural selection only explains small evolutionary changes, together with known as microevolution. Natural selection crowd outnot 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 Darwins original theory date leaving the basic beliefs intact. Darwin proposed that individuals with favorable traits be more likely to brave and reproduce. Darwin called this process natural selection. Darwin did not understand how or why chance variable existed. Today scientists realize that variation uprises through random changes (called mutations) to existing elements. Genes are the chemicals that determine the traits and characteristics of animals and plants. Every trait has one or mo re 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(a) upon random variation gave rise rise to all animals and plants. While the commencement of variation is random, the needion 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 manoeuver by natural selection gave rise to all animals and plants.I will prove that natural selection is not a creative process. Its prime function is to preserve the status quo. Thus, sunrise(prenominal) structures and organs must arise through chance. Natural selection can only preserve and hone these new structures and organs after they evolve through chance. In former(a) words, natural selection does not drive evolution, and the hypothesis on which neo-Darwinism is establish is flawed.Natural selecti on 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 mankind 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 suggest that the processes behind microevolution can also bring close 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 fogy record, it cannot save the theory from the more serious flaws. For example, the success of evolution is found entirely upon the ability of scientists to use microevolution to justify macroevolution.What is the differe nce 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 above1.) Microevolution can bring almost 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 lighten believe in the outlandish fairy-tale that is called evolution?