Even more condemning is that Darwin understood taxonomy (the classification of living organisms), but he refused to acknowledge or account for the gaps in his theory. For example, spontaneous generation, a necessary assumption in Darwin’s theory, cannot explain how proteins are formed. Evolutionists suggest that either proteins or DNA were involved in the first living organism. However, proteins cannot be formed naturally, yet are required for DNA. This raises the “chicken and egg question,” which came first?
In other words, microevolution should not be extended to support macroevolution. While punctuated equilibria may save evolution from the fossil record, it cannot save the theory from the more serious flaws. For example, the success of evolution is based entirely upon the ability of scientists to use microevolution to justify macroevolution. What is the difference between microevolution and macroevolution? Microevolution does not require new structures or organs.
One of the simpler discrepancies in my illogical view of evolution merely involved timescale and the mechanism of change. A single organism cannot evolve within its own life span because of environmental pressure. The very first of Mayr's seventeen principles of inheritance states, "genetic material is constant ('hard'); it cannot be changed by the environment or by use and disuse of the phenotype... Genes cannot be modified by the environment... There is no inheritance of acquired characters" (Mayr, 2001, p. 91).
There is no moral undertone to Darwin’s theory of evolution, and to think of it as having one would discredit objective nature of it. What is morally or ethically wrong is a matter of the heart, something that Darwinian theory cannot properly or effectively
In theory, once a species is listed, no person, group or branch of the federal government; not even the United States Department of Defense- is allowed to proceed with a project that might harm the creature without first consulting and obtaining permission of the wildlife or fisheries service. America's establishment of the Endangered Species Act is probably the most unselfish approach to nature taken by mankind. In fact, the Endangered Species Act is an attempt by the human species to become part of the ecosystem, rather than dictate the end result. However, history shows that the ESA is perhaps mankind's greatest invention to filter other species from the ecosystem, which are irrelevant to humans' interest on "our" spaceship called Earth, when viewed from a psychological perspective. The Endangered Species Act is a classical case of human chauvinism at its best because under it humans, or people, come first and everything else a bad last, t... ... middle of paper ... ...o presentation.
Another thing wrong with this argument is that evolution does not always lead to improvement and higher complexity. An organism is either well suited to its environment or it’s not. Some organisms have even evolved too many complexities, called over-specialization, and have gone extinct as a result. Evolution is merely an autonomous system that is driven by variation and environmental/natural selection. “Evolution as a whole seems to explain variation of life, but it doesn’t explain where the first living thing came from!” Yes that’s absolutely true.
The naturalists, although rooted in religious beliefs and explanations of the world, were the pioneers of evolutionary science because they began to look for explanations that were not found in religious texts. They explored the natural world. In today’s world, physical anthropologists focus on human variation in order to determine what factors into the physical and genetic variation of humans. Because the human anatomy is a large part of our biological makeup, some physical anthropologists specialize in just studying the human anatomy and physical anthropology is a good basis for other career choices s... ... middle of paper ... ...generations. If it is a beneficial mutation, then it will likely not only pass on through reproduction, but those offspring will have better odds of reproducing in order to “spread” that trait onto future offspring.
One of the biggest aspects of human nature is the desire for relationship. Humans crave a sense of belonging which is undoubtedly an evolutionary advantage given to us by our ancestors that traveled in packs. The more relationships they instinctively formed, the more likely they were to survive and pass of those genes. The more complex humans have become over the years corresponds to the difference in complexity that their relationships have undergone. Because humans will never stop evolving in their technologically advanced world, it is logical to think that relationships won’t either.
Charles Darwin the one behind the theory of evolution, argued that all individuals struggle to survive on limited resources, but some have inherited small differences that give them an “upper hand” when it comes to surviving or reproducing, over those who do not have these beneficial traits. Such individuals have a higher probability of their species staying alive than those without that specific trait. The useful traits they withhold then become more common in the population due to more of their offspring surviving. Eventually these auspicious traits become the “norm”. On the other hand, the harmful traits are rapidly eradicated as people that retain them are less likely to reproduce.
Compatibilist like Peter van Inwagen believes that freedom can be present or absent in any situations. One of the famous Consequence Argument on compatibilism is by Peter van Inwagen who says: “If determinism is true, then our acts are the consequences of the laws of nature and events in the remote past. But it is not up to us what went on before we were born, and neither is it up to us what the laws of nature are. Therefore, the consequences of these things (including our present acts) are not up to us. "1 The contradiction here is that human cannot refrain from performing free will.