View source for Why Darwin's Evolution theory can be wrong?

<p><span style="font-size:24px"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><strong>Why Darwin&#39;s Evolution&nbsp;theory can be wrong? &nbsp; &nbsp;</strong></span></span><span style="font-size:16px"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><strong> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</strong><em> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; </em></span></span></p>

<p><span style="font-size:16px"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><em>Madina Seidualy &nbsp; 20132023</em></span></span></p>

<p><span style="font-size:16px"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">In 1859, Charles Darwin first introduced evolution theory to the world in his &ldquo;On the Origin of the Species&rdquo; book. This theory explains about that all creatures of life have been evolved from common ancestry. According to him from the simplest things transformed to the most complicated organisms by natural selection over the long time of period. Precisely, mutation in organisms leads to variation in structure, where mutation help organism to survive in specific environment that organism will preserve that mutation in itself and pass it to the next generations. At the same time, if mutation affords to some abnormalities or make it hard to adapt to the environment, they will not make more offspring and will disappear over the period. That is the main concept of the natural selection, which organism changes over the time by accumulation of different advantageous mutations in their genetic code.</span></span></p>

<p><span style="font-size:16px"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">&nbsp;Nevertheless, Darwin&rsquo;s evolution theory is argued a lot, since there a lot of misconception and scientific knowledge is usually tentative and subject to change when new evidences or new theories comes out. Furthermore, I would like to describe how this evolution theory can be wrong and give some examples.</span></span></p>

<p><span style="font-size:16px"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><strong>Similarities among species</strong>. If human beings have similar or same organs such as eyes, lungs, hearts with monkeys it does not mean that we derived from them. In genetics similarities among species defined as homology, degree of the relatedness. However, in this essay I prefer using the word &ldquo;similarity&rdquo;, due to it helps to analyze evolution theory accurately.</span></span></p>

<p><span style="font-size:16px"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">In life, the majority of animals and plants have huge similarities and it can explained by that they all consisted of same elements: oxygen, nitrogen, carbon, hydrogen. The same thing might be observed in other field, for example, there too many sentences and languages in the world, however all of them made up by only the letter&rsquo;s combinations. In two words might be all letters be same but only one letter can be different, also like that there can be ten words that differ only in one letter but have absolutely different meanings. Even though there is huge similarities among types of organisms, all species have significant differences between them, which we should not neglected. In addition, humans and other animals mostly feed from the common foods. Despite that, all living organisms varies in many aspects. It is not enough to say that animals derived from each other only looking to their similarities in organs and in their constructions.</span></span></p>

<p><span style="font-size:16px"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Moreover, applying diverse mechanisms for all various creatures in the world is not favorable. On the grounds of that interaction between them would have lost, every type will stay in their world and would be wild. Consequently, in this world would be impossible to live a life.</span></span></p>

<p><span style="font-size:16px"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><strong>Darwin&#39;s Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis</strong>.&nbsp; Recent improvements in science afford rewarding results in variety research. Darwin made theory in the concept of that organisms gradually evolves from primitive cells to the multicellular and multifunctional animal and human beings. On the other hand, molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote that &quot;Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10<sup>-12</sup>&nbsp;grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world.&quot; &nbsp;(Michael Denton, &quot;Evolution: A Theory in Crisis,&quot; 1986, p. 250.)</span></span></p>

<p><span style="font-size:16px"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">From its cellular level it was not a simple creature, from beginning all organisms own amazing complex systems.</span></span></p>

<p><span style="font-size:16px"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">&nbsp;Charles Darwin did not create this theory all alone, or it did not pop up accidently. Before Darwin, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck bring the idea of the transformational evolution. He first introduced the idea of that organism changes by time according to effect of the environment, and those changes inherited to the next generations. He proposed idea of &ldquo;use it and lose it&rdquo;, where using one part of the organism can improve or bring changes in traits and disuse can cause to reduction of that function. Darwin influenced with that idea, and described it in the context of &ldquo;natural selection&rdquo;. They provided several examples for &ldquo;use it and lose it&rdquo; theory, like formation of long neck in giraffes or wingless birds that evolve wings, and remnant organs in different organism regarded as a useless evolutionary artifact.</span></span></p>

<p><span style="font-size:16px"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">However, a new advances in science and technology found new evidences, which did not support evolution theory, afford avenues that evolution theory can be wrong. To give an example, an appendix for a long time was considered as a remnant organ in human body, which lost its function during the evolution. Now, appendix suspected of playing an important immunological role much like that of tonsils and adenoids. Recent studies suggests that this organ is &ldquo;safe organ&rdquo; for commensal bacteria in the large intestine. Presence or absence of an appendix reveals no evolutionary pattern, because this organ not found in any invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, or bird.</span></span></p>

<p><span style="font-size:16px"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Also, according to Lamarck assumption, giraffe gets long neck, due to they constantly tried eating leafs from tall trees, as a result his neck is prolonged. Then it brings question why only giraffes have long neck? Is there any animal, which do not want to eat leaves from tall trees? There is goat, which consumes leafs also, but their neck didn&rsquo;t get long, instead they jump from rocks to rock to climb and get leaf from trees. The same question, why snake will prefer live without limbs, while the other animals in the same environment uses limbs very well?</span></span></p>

<p><span style="font-size:16px"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">&nbsp;Wingless birds evolve a wing. In evolution, if first wings starts to appear, at first it will be stubs, which is too small for the bird to fly. Why it will continue to evolve if a bird stubs at first is useless? With respect to evolution theory will it be counted as disadvantages in its environment? Thereby, there are some contradictions that leads to misconceptions in theory. &nbsp;&nbsp;</span></span></p>

<p><span style="font-size:16px"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">In a nutshell, Darwin&rsquo;s evolution theory cannot taken as fact due to it lacks some perfections in its concept. &nbsp;Until it will proved scientifically, there will be arguments and contrast ideas every time. We cannot make conclusion after looking to the first three or four closed doors among one thousand doors, that all of them are closed. &nbsp;&nbsp;</span></span></p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p><span style="font-size:16px"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">References:</span></span></p>

<p><span style="font-size:14px"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><a href="http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/">http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/</a></span></span></p>

<p><span style="font-size:14px"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Michael Denton, &quot;Evolution: A Theory in Crisis,&quot; 1986</span></span></p>

<p><span style="font-size:14px"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><a href="http://www.sparknotes.com/biology/evolution/lamarck/section2.rhtml">http://www.sparknotes.com/biology/evolution/lamarck/section2.rhtml</a></span></span></p>

<p><span style="font-size:14px"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Duke University Medical Center. &quot;Evolution Of The Human Appendix: A Biological &#39;Remnant&#39; No More.&quot; ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 21 August 2009. <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090820175901.htm">www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090820175901.htm</a></span></span></p>

<p><span style="font-size:14px"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">&ldquo;Why Darwinism Is False&rdquo; <a href="http://www.discovery.org/p/41">Jonathan Wells</a> ,<em>Discovery Institute</em>, May 18, 2009 <a href="http://www.discovery.org/a/10661">http://www.discovery.org/a/10661</a></span></span></p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>