Pros And Cons Of Macroevolution

Every since the publication of the Origins of Species in 1859, the theory of evolution has been generally accepted by scientists around the world, that is, until 1996 when Michael Behe published his book Darwin's Black Box, calling the theory of evolution into question. The theory of evolution states that individual single point mutations in DNA give rise to the development of new characteristics in species. If these new characteristics are advantageous for survival, then the genes are passed down to new generations. As these characteristics are accumulated, new species develop. However, while most scientists have accepted evolution as a scientific fact, they have yet to answer some basic fundamental questions about the process itself. Michael Behe points to this and proposes that the reason scientists do not yet have all the answers regarding the processes behind evolution is because they have failed to see the intelligent design that lies within it. The author asserts that the "data of biochemistry argues strongly that many molecular machines in the cell could not have arisen through a step-by-step process of natural selection"¦much of the molecular machinery in the cell is irreducibly complex." (Bohlin, 2000, p. 103)

In the modern world, mankind is surrounding by a plethora of unique animals, plants, and other organism that have a certain natural design all their own. For instance, every organism appears to be best suited in their natural environment, as they are usually able thrive under unique conditions that may not optimal for every organism. Thus, it would appear as though divine intervention was necessary for this perfect design and placement of an organism into their environment. Consequently, this was the ideology for many centuries until Charles Darwin explained how these “illusions” fit into his theory of natural selection. Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection stated that the process by which forms of life having traits that better enable them to adapt to specific environmental pressures, such as predators, changes in climate, or competition for food or mates, will tend to survive and reproduce in greater numbers than others of their kind, thus ensuring the perpetuation of those favorable traits in succeeding generations (Cite). Although it is widely accepted that many of human’s physical traits are inherited from their parents, the notion that the mind has evolved and is designed to function is certain ways is still controversial (Cite). With that being said, the majority of theories that illustrate how the mind develops are still being debated. Moreover, the

Evolution theories have been around for a long time. There have also been a lot of old- and young Earth creationism arguments. These theories and arguments are discussed in this paper.

Evolution has been a topic for many years in the field of science. According to the Theory of Evolution, humans have been once apes and are still categorized as descendants of the ape family. This evolution was caused by variations and mutations in `order to fit into the environment and to survive. However, in the story “Devolution” by Edmond Hamilton, there is a completely different and opposite view of how humans have changed after millions of years. Whether humans were once a higher form of life and have been degrading into lesser beings or have derived from a more advanced type of being is a large discussion to take into consideration. Clifford D. Simak and Edmond Hamilton emphasize how changes evolution have caused an increase or decrease effect on human beings.

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.

In the first chapter, Coyne discusses the basic concept outline of evolution, and brings clarity to the common misconceptions thought and said about how the science works, and the large misuse of the word theory. The first chapter of this book also defines very carefully each of the main hypothesis of evolutionary theory. Which stands in dissimilarity to many other treatments of evolution, which all have a propensity to confuse some readers by integrating different meanings of the word. Coyne also divides Darwinism into six components. They are: evolution which means change over time, gradualism which is a policy of slower change rather than sudden change or a revolution, speciation which is the evolutionary process where a new biological species

Moreover, today’s criticisms and denials also come from all quarters in various forms such as creationism, Li 2 neo-creationism, and intelligent design. Even though several points exist on either side of the creationism versus evolution argument, notwithstanding the gaps on both sides of the divide, it becomes apparent that the theory of evolution has some serious fundamental flaws. Creationism is the belief that concept and design require a creator (Sarfati and Mathews). When applied to detecting design in the universe and life, this principle becomes a more reasonable explanation to believe in a higher power as the Creator or Designer of both (Sarfati and Mathews). Unlike the concept of evolution, which remains unproven and continues to lack even the slightest experimental or observational support, the creationist argument is sound because it argues against a set of misunderstandings about evolution that people are right to consider ludicrous (Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini).

These principles include genetic variation, natural selection, gene flow, and genetic drift. Embracing a Christian perspective on microevolution involves recognizing the role of a divine creator in shaping the natural world. This approach offers a different lens for understanding the workings of microevolution, providing an alternative to the naturalistic evolutionary framework. In conclusion, a Christian perspective on microevolution acknowledges the principles of naturalistic evolution while also recognizing the role of a divine creator in shaping the natural world. The concept of evolution within a Christian worldview has been a topic of much discussion and debate.

The word is now accepted to mean the change of nonliving chemicals into simple life-forms into more complex life-forms and finally into humans.” (Answers in Genesis 1). Despite the many claims that “evolution” simply means a change, scientifically speaking it means much more. Evolutionary ideals describe changes that allow scientists to date life on the earth to be 4.5 billion years, to trace the entire living population of every animal, insect, plant, virus, and bacteria back to one simple cell, and to conclude that the first cell supposedly came into being sporadically from a pool of organic molecules (Archean 1). Science cannot factually support evolutionary concepts because evolution cannot be tested; observation holds a critical role for experiments to take place, yet spontaneous creation of a cell has not recurred since the alleged first living cell created itself. Evolution cannot be proven, and therefore, the public school system should not teach evolution as fact, especially with no exposure to alternative concepts.

3. His approach to the issue of of “Design in Nature” is that there is no sufficient condition to guarantee the nature of the world we experience. James tells us that the arguments of the past for intelligent design are no longer supported by our experience and, therefore must be false under all probable possibilities. He then explains that theologians have now reinterpreted their systems under the effects of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and found that there is no sufficient guarantee that the world was not, in fact, created. In other words, the world could very well have been created by God and evolution offers merely more information ot come to understand God’s creation.

The purpose of this paper is to describe Creationism and Natural Selection by the means of Darwin and Paley's views. Both scientists use Inference to the Best Explanation (IBE) to support their claims. Paley presents the information of Creationism and how the intelligent designer model works (watch model). Darwin presents the argument that Natural Selection has occurred, even though some evidence is missing. I will be arguing that Natural Selection is more plausible than Creationism because there has to have been changes and processes to get where modern society is today.

In terms of Intelligent Design, it is clear that this is not a Science. Intelligent Design can fall under the category of pseudoscience for many reasons. One of which is because it meets Alan Blum’s criteria for pseudoscience. Throughout the whole field of Intelligent Design, there is really no legitimate evidence that can lead to Intelligent Design being accurate. Number three of Blum’s criteria for identifying something as pseudoscience is “By convincing the audience that the results are legitimate science.” (Saindon, 2014). Throughout this point from his criteria, he outlines the points that “there are other ways of convincing an audience that the results are legitimate science, especially if the audience is

Although natural selection was responsible for a change in genes to occur, struggle and a need to adapt were ultimately the instigators of natural selection. As a result, many species faced hardships and were forced to evolve in order to survive. From a scientific standpoint, such hardships are reflected in historical sequences of genes, which reveal imperfections and flaws that align with Darwin’s principle of “descent with modification”. This principle is fundamental to the process of evolution in nature as it describes how genes are passed from generation to generation. With this in mind, evolution occurred naturally and on it’s own. If God did play a hand in designing nature, how could he have done so in such a careless fashion? The God talked about by intelligent design theorists and creationists is one of importance, of intricacy and purpose. As Francis Crick put it, “if God is responsible for these designs, then His intelligence looks disturbingly like human obtuseness and

Intelligent Design is the idea that living creatures on Earth are so complex that, they could not possibly have been created through the natural selection. It is the belief that there must be an ?intelligent designer? that created us all. This creator is usually referenced as God. However, it may also be

which we haven't even discovered yet. This world and its life forms are so complex we