argument top image

Is the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection Correct? Show more Show less
Back to question

In the nineteenth century, Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace advanced a new theory to explain the origins of life on earth and the evolution of different lifeforms. They called it the theory of evolution by natural selection. Natural selection is the key mechanism by which all organisms have evolved. Today, many call the theory 'the theory of evolution' or 'Darwin's theory of evolution' (since Wallace is not as well-known).

No, the theory of evolution is flawed on many levels Show more Show less

The theory is full of holes and up against serious challenges it cannot overcome. For many learned scientists and philosophers, it is defunct. Darwin's theory cannot account for human intelligence and speech. The human mind is far too complex and so is human speech. Blind, random, directionless processes—the phenomenon of natural selection—can never produce the mind, human speech, the cell, or DNA. The mathematical, philosophical, and scientific flaws in Darwin's theory have already been elucidated.
< (2 of 2)

The fossil record is incomplete

If evolution happened through the gradual development and multiplication of slight variations, which is what evolutionists claim, then the fossil record should exhibit dead organisms closely constellated together with scarcely differentiated strata. But this is not the case. The record is filled with gaps.

The Argument

Evolution supposedly took place over the span of four billion years. No one observed the process. Today, the fossil record and the comparative anatomy, physiology, and biochemistry of various organisms allow scientists to infer about the past. If life evolved through the gradual development and multiplication of slight variations, then the fossil record should exhibit this kind of constellating progression. Dead organisms should be constellated in strata that are hardly differentiated.[1] "But for well over 150 years," says David Berlinski, "the dead have been remarkably diffident about confirming Darwin’s theory."[1] The disintegrated remains of primeval creatures do not appear how they should in the fossil record. Palaeontologists have classified fossils into different categories like theromorphs and therapsids. But there are significant gaps in the record; many key transitional forms are nowhere to be found.[1] Prior to the Cambrian era, which was roughly 600 million years ago, the fossil record exhibits a significantly small collection of biological forms.[1] A vast array of new biological forms suddenly emerges in the Cambrian era.[1] These new biological forms appear all at once in the fossil record.[1] Then, key courses of transitional progress are simply absent.[1] Consider the ancestral link between Eusthenopteron and Ichthyostega, which is the pivotal juncture of the fish and the amphibia. Most species come into the evolutionary arrangement entirely formed and go out unaltered.[1] "Where there should be evolution, there is stasis instead," says Berlinski. [1] In building their theory of "punctuated equilibria," palaeontologists Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge had to resort to using the term 'stasis'.[1] Steven Stanley, a palaeontologist and evolutionary biologist at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, says the following: "The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid."[1]

Counter arguments



Rejecting the premises

Further Reading

Support: Counters:




Not sure yet? Read more ↑


This page was last edited on Tuesday, 13 Oct 2020 at 01:33 UTC

Explore related arguments