T here are some people in the world who don' t understand what evolution really is. Or maybe, they just can' t digest the perfection of it. And these people have come up with several reasons, which they proudly pronounce to be ' scientific' in their writings and speeches. Well, let' s take a dive into their thoughts and see what is so wrong with them that has impelled me to call this story hilarious. Check it out!
Alright, so the first allegation that attempts to challenge the theory of evolution aims at proving that natural selection - the very basis of evolution - is wrong! And the proof are the flightless birds. So here's the thing - natural selection professes the survival of the fittest. Just because a bird has developed wings that it can't use for flying proves nothing - because unless the wings would cause the birds to become vulnerable, there is no affect that the wings have on the bird's ability to survive whatsoever.
The next 'fact' pointed out is that evolutionists line up pictures of similar looking creatures over the course of history and claim to prove evolution. It is done easily with the ape-human transformation because of the existence of several extinct species of apes, but they never do it for giraffes or platypuses! What is laughable over here is that these people believe evolution needs to be apparent in every single animal, and if it's not, then the theory is faulty. Comparing the dynamic species of humans to other non-active lifeforms is a desperate move. Humans have had to evolve probably the most because of their nature to wander - they have had to adjust more - evolve more! And, also, evolution need not be just in the physical appearances one might note!
The next allegation is the missing branches of the evolutionary tree that show the death of a progression of inferior changes in an individual. The logic that is given to give weight to the argument is that only a tiny fraction of changes are superior, and there are a large number of changes that are inferior and will lead to inferior species, of which some fossils should have been found. So here's the fault in the logic: inferior changes do not last for more than a few, say, three to five generations, because the dominating change spreads fast and eliminates the inferior change. So, you're unlikely to find drastically different species that have resulted from an inferior change!
This is pure scepticism and the result of a closed mind. Over the billions of years that have passed, it is possible to gain the complexity that we have today - it just happened bit by bit.
The allegation is that the external environment can never change the DNA unless it's with radiation or such DNA-altering mechanisms. However, the fault in this statement is that it does not look at the possibility of the opposite happening - the DNA changing itself to create mechanisms in the body to respond to the external stimulus.
One point that makes quite a lot of sense, at first, but not that much if thought about a little harder. While it is true that an error in DNA replication is corrected automatically, and this would not allow DNA to change and hence the species to evolve, it overlooks the fact that there are a few rare cases where the DNA is not fixed. If the result of the changes DNA allows for a better survival rate, then it thrives, while the older species with the older DNA slowly fades.