Evoloutiojm

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