Weve heard of the famous tagline survival of the fittest. This had been coined from Charles Darwins popular theory on Natural Selection. Since the theory had been known to the public, it had never stopped receiving criticisms though there are those who conform to it. I am one of those individuals who are not an advocate of this theory. But what really is Natural Selection Theory The American Heritage Dictionary defines this theory as the process by which, according to Darwins theory of evolution, only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and transmit their genetic characteristics in increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less adapted to be eliminated.
Evolution has not yet been observed
One of the basic arguments against evolution is that it has not yet been observed. What we have are fossils here and there and the rest are speculations. There is no empirical and observable data that can directly show natural selection and the survival of the fittest. Many would argue that there are many evidences of evolution. However let me point out that these evidences are unreliable and even downright inconsistent. Radio carbon dating, the one used to determine how old is the fossils are generate inconsistent results. In fact, if we would simply look at the gaps in the fossil records and not the fossil records per se, the conclusions for evolution would be reversed.
Life is too complex to be relegated to chance.
Biochemist H. Quasler says that the coincidence of life is 10 raised to the 301 power. For him, life is the most improbable and the most significant event in the history of the universe. This means that if we are to believe in evolution, or the laws of chance, the creation of modern man would take zillion zillion zillion years. The universe is estimated only to be 12-20 billion years old. So how can life be possible How can the human being with a thinking brain be even possible We cannot attribute life to the forces of chance and natural selection.
Evolution cannot explain the development of the human brain.
The principles of natural selection and survival of the fittest alone cannot account for the mighty development of the brain that can understand symbols and images and can make abstractions, music and poetry. The human capacity for the arts is not a matter of survival but of reaching out to the highest of human longings. It is impossible for evolution to create the human mind.
Chance and natural selection alone cannot produce complex life
The Law of Entropy states that all things lead to death, decay, and simplification. Yet the principles of life all leads to increasing complexity. The teleological direction of life is forward and not backward. This is something that evolution could not explain. If we would look at the history of life on earth, the planet experienced mass extinctions five times. If we were to follow chance and natural selection alone, every mass extinction would have to restart evolution all over again. This means that we should have fossil records of evolution five times, which we dont have.
And lastly Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest alone cannot explain the complex structure of the DNA. If we would seriously look at how the DNA works, then we would really wonder who designed it to work that way. The DNA is a masterpiece of the divine.
Evolution has not yet been observed
One of the basic arguments against evolution is that it has not yet been observed. What we have are fossils here and there and the rest are speculations. There is no empirical and observable data that can directly show natural selection and the survival of the fittest. Many would argue that there are many evidences of evolution. However let me point out that these evidences are unreliable and even downright inconsistent. Radio carbon dating, the one used to determine how old is the fossils are generate inconsistent results. In fact, if we would simply look at the gaps in the fossil records and not the fossil records per se, the conclusions for evolution would be reversed.
Life is too complex to be relegated to chance.
Biochemist H. Quasler says that the coincidence of life is 10 raised to the 301 power. For him, life is the most improbable and the most significant event in the history of the universe. This means that if we are to believe in evolution, or the laws of chance, the creation of modern man would take zillion zillion zillion years. The universe is estimated only to be 12-20 billion years old. So how can life be possible How can the human being with a thinking brain be even possible We cannot attribute life to the forces of chance and natural selection.
Evolution cannot explain the development of the human brain.
The principles of natural selection and survival of the fittest alone cannot account for the mighty development of the brain that can understand symbols and images and can make abstractions, music and poetry. The human capacity for the arts is not a matter of survival but of reaching out to the highest of human longings. It is impossible for evolution to create the human mind.
Chance and natural selection alone cannot produce complex life
The Law of Entropy states that all things lead to death, decay, and simplification. Yet the principles of life all leads to increasing complexity. The teleological direction of life is forward and not backward. This is something that evolution could not explain. If we would look at the history of life on earth, the planet experienced mass extinctions five times. If we were to follow chance and natural selection alone, every mass extinction would have to restart evolution all over again. This means that we should have fossil records of evolution five times, which we dont have.
And lastly Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest alone cannot explain the complex structure of the DNA. If we would seriously look at how the DNA works, then we would really wonder who designed it to work that way. The DNA is a masterpiece of the divine.
Categories:
0 comments:
Отправить комментарий