A Rebuttal to Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution Essay

If theres one thing that would discombobulate the highly ghostlike person infuriated, that one thing would probably be the possibility of ontogenesis by Charles Darwin. Quite a rugged assumption just now a little true nonetheless. Religion, as a social institution, derives much of its foundations on several bearings the most important being the Theory of Cr fertiliseionism. Under this mishap (or touch sensation?), benevolentity, the universe and life in general were all created in their pilot light form by an Almighty existence or by an Inevit sufficient Force. Usually, this refers to the deity or deities of a reliable communes religious beliefs. The Theory of growing, on the new(prenominal) hand, portends that humanity, or life itself, emerged finished a series of trial and errors wherein the fittest species among all differents emerged victorious over spirits anarchic character. The idea of a plastered creature forked off from its original species to produce a va riant kind of track is what the Theory of Evolution calls Natural Selection. By Natural Selection, the possibility apologizes that certain uncommon features and/or characteristics consumeed by a select some would inevitably allow them/it to have a higher chance of natural selection against those who do possess none of the self selfsame(prenominal)(prenominal) features and/or characteristics.For instance, assume that a species of birds uncannily produce a hatchling that possess a kind of large and long-dated beak than its original counterparts. By having this feature, the bird is now able to catch and eat more intellectual nourishment as compared to the other birds of the same species that possess shorter and smaller (otherwise, normal) beaks. The possible action claims that once this unique bird reproduces its own hatchlings, the unique features and characteristics it possessed would most likely be passed on thus, eventually perpetuating the idea of the introduction of a different kind of species of birds that possess longer and larger beaks.And since having longer and larger beaks enables these birds (those which possess it) to catch, gather and eat more food, the natural balance of the food chain is automatically shifted unequally. Being that the birds with the shorter and smaller beaks ordain always be outcompeted by the new species with longer and larger beaks, the original species (otherwise, old) exit probably end up being extinct.This idea is further supported by the theorys most famous nonion, The excerpt of the Fittest. In the simplest sentiency, the theory states that those who are genetically strong as compared to the others will be the ones who will survive. As utilise in the case of the birds, it was the newly developed species which seemed to be the fittest against their original counterparts. As much(prenominal), their survival was ensured branching off into a higher level of species and eliminating the rather weak species. U nderstanding the Theory of Evolution in its general sense is not an easy task. For one thing, the theory itself is now including several different kinds of supposed facts to support Charles Darwins original theory (now referred to as Neo-Darwinism). Furthermore, its be principles and hypotheses do not lie alone on biology but excessively on genetics and others. As if understanding the theory is great(p) enough, debunking the theory is an even harder task. Supporters of the Creationist Theory will always be under attack by the supporters of the Evolutionist Theory. This unbelievable dedication of faith and belief towards the Theory of Evolution is considered an awesome phenomenon similar to that of Catholicisms recrudesce as a predominant faith in the late core Ages. In other words, the Theory itself, ironically, is now becoming a religion in many ways. Henceforth, as hard as it is to debunk the Creationist Theory, the same will now be likewise to the Evolutionist Theory. Going back to the theorys initial stages, however, it would seem rather easy to refute Charles Darwins findings. Compared to the status of the Theory of Evolution at present, the status of Darwins theory in the past (as he presented it) remained attractive to questions of veracity and factuality. For many, though it seemed credible, it was also contestable. First of all, Darwins Theory does not explain fully the ancestry and/or origins of humankind as generalized from that of primates. Sure, there are many similarities be between humans and Apes. But the Theory never really explained wherefore or how humankind technically branched off from the original species of primates. blush if we use the notion of Survival of the Fittest, none of the pieces still seem to fit. For instance, allow us assume that a group of Chimpanzees produce an offspring that is all the way smarter than the rest of the clan. Now, that offspring immediately becomes the fittest among them. Still, it would be som eway infeasible to deduce that this special primate would reproduce a couple more unambiguously smart primates that would eventually start an hereditary cycle create the almost accidental creation of a new species.Even if that somehow became possible over a course of billions of years, it would still not explain how humankind developed a sense of wearing clothes, cook their food and establish a unique language that is clearly different to that of their original counterparts. Furthermore, some possible explanations regarding the loss of bodily hair, the shortening of the mandibles and other such anatomic inquiries remain in question for the theory. Second, the development of a certain organ was never fully explained by the great man himself. adjudge a look at birds, for instance. The development of birds, from land creatures to fowls of the air, is clearly unsupported by the theory. As the theory explains, evolution occurs overtime through a course of millions of years. If so, ho w did the development of move benefit the earliest species of birds? Imagine an antediluvian patriarch bird that started growing small wings. Of course, since these are small, it cannot benefit the animal in any way other than be a burden. As such, the status of fittest is automatically removed.Ultimately, the species who were just starting to develop their own wings wouldve become extinct and lost to the supposed survival. On the other hand, looking at the picture the other way around, it seems almost impossible that a group of land creatures would suddenly hatch (or give birth) to an hatchling that by nature or immediately possess wings it would just not make sense. For the Theory of Evolution and the notion of Survival of the Fittest to work, organs and other characteristics mustiness be present at once and not in a continual process that would take billions of years. Finally, the Theory of Evolution never really explained how the confused development of the human mind occurred. Just how exactly did human beings develop a sense of rationalization? How did they come to have a sense of beauty? How about a sense of free will? If humans with mental disabilities continue to breed for thousands of years, would the existence of a unique race of mentally disabled men and women become a possibility? How did evolution come to develop a mind that is so complex and comprehensive as compared to other creatures? These are just some of the questions that rightfully pose a great threat to the Theory of Evolution (during Darwins time at least). When Charles Darwin presented his Theory to the Academic Community, the Theory of Evolution was not as strong as it was today. By all means, it was easily contestable. afterwards a couple of decades, however, the Theory gained so many supporters that even the scientific Community now almost completely adheres to its principles. Until the adherents of the Theory of Evolution do not find concrete answers to some of the ques tions posed above, the theory will forever only remain as such a theory. Similarly, the Creationist Theory also possesses the same dilemma. Clearly, that is one reason why both theories in spite of after several decades still continue to battle each other out for supremacy (which is ironically a pun of the notion Survival of the Fittest itself).Cited SourcesCampbell, J. A. and Meyer, S. C. (2005) Evolution Debate it. USA Today December 5, 2007 from Dean, C. (2005) Opting Out in the Debate on Evolution. The New York Times December 5, 2007 from Futuyma, D. J. (2005). Evolution. Sunderland, Massachusetts Sinauer Associates, Inc.Scott, E. C. and Branch, G. (2005) Evolution Just Teach it. USA Today December 5, 2007 from Smith, J. M. (1993) The Theory of Evolution. Cambridge University water closetWeiss, R. and Brown, D. (2005) New Analyses Bolster Central Tenets of Evolution Theory Washington military post December 5, 2007 from