An Argument Against the Modern Theory of Evolution

Categories: Evolution

One of man s greatest attributes is the ability to imagine. No other creature could make mental images of how reality might be, nor invision a part of the future. We make theories based on how things could have been or might be in order to quench our thirst for curiosity. One of these theories is the theory of evolution. This theory, according to many, answers the question, Where do we come from? This essay will determine that the theories of evolution (past and present) are incorrect scientifically, and logically by examining Darwin s theory, Wallaces involvement, giving evidence against their theories, presenting the modern theory of evolution and giving evidence the modern theory of evolution as well as discussing the negative influence evolution has had on many people.

As you read on, I encourage you to keep an open mind and set aside what you have been led to believe.

Charles Darwin was born of a wealthy family in the Midlands of England in 1805.

Get quality help now
Writer Lyla
Verified writer

Proficient in: Evolution

5 (876)

“ Have been using her for a while and please believe when I tell you, she never fail. Thanks Writer Lyla you are indeed awesome ”

+84 relevant experts are online
Hire writer

As a young boy, he was interested in identifying rocks and insects. He tried to get an education in medicine but dropped out. At this point, Darwin was an oridnary Joe living in the country. Then, in 1831, he was invited to travel on a British navel ship, the H.M.S. Beagle, in an exhibition to the coast of South America. Darwin spent five years on the Beagle, mostly observing plants and animals on the shore. He was especially interested in geoogical aspects of the region and corel reefs.

Get to Know The Price Estimate For Your Paper
Number of pages
Email Invalid email

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy. We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

"You must agree to out terms of services and privacy policy"
Check writers' offers

You won’t be charged yet!

Returning in 1836, Darwin reflected on his journey; he recalled that animals from one island were similar but distinctly different from animals in another area. He deduced that the animals must have been carried to the island in a storm, then generated variations naturally. The variations helped the animals adapt to their new environment.

This gave him the idea that all organisms were not fixed but continuously evolving.  Two years later, Darwin put his ideas together and wroted a 200 page essay which was influenced by Lyell s geological factors and Malthus struggle for survival theory. In 1856, he began to write Evoltuion by Natural Selection which was full of footnotes to back up his theories. Three years later it was published witht the support of other scientists. The full title was On the origin of species by means of natural selection: or, the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. The first chapter discussed breeding. The second chapter explained the variations he, and other scientists observed in nature. The third to fifth chapters were title, The Struggle for Existance, Natural Selection, and the Laws of Variation. Charles Darwin though that a purely natural progression of circumstances, given proper time, will eventually lead to an interacting, complex system of organic matter which we see all around us.  The rest of the book discussed the geographical distribution of organisms. Unlike other science publications of the time, darwin devoted a chapter which discussed some of the problems and obstacles with his theory. His book was contraversial, but an instant success. 

Alfred Russel Wallace is called one of the forgotten fathers of modern science. He was born in 1823, in Monmouthshire, England.8 Wallace surveyed English counties with his brother and possessed a beatle collection. In Leicester, at the Collegiate School, he was appointed to the position of drawingmaster. Wallace met another teacher there, Henry Bates, who steered Wallace into the world of botany. The two went on an expedhition to the Amazon and Rio Negro rivers. During this time, Wallace made gathered many specimens and stayed in Brazil for four more years until coming back to England in 1852.10 A year later, he left to the Indies where he stayed for the next nine years. In the Indies, Wallace became interrested in how species arose. In 1855, he published an article arguing that new species originate in space and time coincident with an already existing realated species. Three years later, Wallace invited Darwin to put his 200 page essay into his own book. With this joint publication, Darwin s theory became known to the scientific community. Wallace supported the theory of evolution and was the major contributor though not credited deservingly. Like Darwin, Wallace was influenced by Malthus struggle for survival theory. The two observationalists made a very good team who s theory was revolutionary to say the least.

It is unfair to toarget Darwin s and Wallace s 150 year old theory of evolution with current information but it is necessary. Evolution suggest that life came from non-life and then became better and better over time. However, the Law of Biogenesis states that life must come from life. Simple cells need all of their billions of parts in order to function. In order for evolution to occur, all of those parts would have to come into existance at the same time, same place and work together in perfect order. This is simply not possible; life is far to complex to have resulted in chance (from non-life). Evolution, involves a continual increase of order, of organization, of size, of complexity,… This contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics (universally accepted) which states that all things left to themselves, (without divine intervention) will tend to run down. Therefore, it is not possible for something complex and living to come out of something basic and non-living such as gases and water. Consider a non-living object (which is made up of many non-living objects) such as a car, parked in a parking lot for a hundred million years, only to be affected by the elements and natural phenomena. After the hundred million years, the car will be just metal pieces scattered across a large area ( tend to run down ). Evolution suggests that non-living elements that remain in their hostile environment, over time, could come together to form trillion-celled organisms which could imagine. (Imagination isnt necessary for survival, so evolution cannot explain our possession of such a quality).

Natural Selection says that organisms are suited for their invironment because they evolved into it. For the sake of argument, if an organism wasn t suited for its environment, wouldn t it die before it had the chance to suit itself to that environment? (Which, even evolutionists say takes upto hundreds of millions of years). Of course it would! It is more logical and more likely that organisms would be created for their environment rather than evolving into it. Now that scientific law prooves that life cannot come from non-life, and life cannot become more than it already is, I must now show that adaptation or chance cannot defy the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The genetic code from the parent organisms are always enclosed in the DNA fo the offspring. This genetic code is the building instructions for that organism, and since it is a mix of the codes from its parents, it cannot have the genetic ability to become more than its parents and therefore cannot evolve. This disprooves the thoery of Natural Selection genetically by contradicting the notion that organisms from one basic kind can mysteriously evolve into another basic kind. Therefore, organisms constantly adapting still cannot change into another organism.

The chance side which evolutionists say could defy the Second Law of Thermodynamics is the possibilities of mutations. Evolutionary geneticists acknowledge that 99.9% of all observed mutations have a negative effect on the organism. However that .1% chance of a good mutation isnt as good as it seems if it is examined in the net effect. If one good mutation ever did occur, it would be competing with almost one thousand harmful mutations. Over time, the net effect/result would be that the harmful mutations will overcome the small amount of good ones and therefore cause the organism to become less functionable and die. Also, mutations cannot produce new genetic material or potential, so even the beneficial mutations couldn t have been passed along to the next generations anyways. With all this in mind, it is obvious that Darwin s and Wallace s theory of evolution is untenable. However, now the modern theory of evoltuion must be put to the test.

The modern theory of evolution most widely accepted is the Modern Synthesis. This theory relies mostly on random genetic events such as mutation. It goes like this: The Earth was formed between four and five billion years ago. The atmosphere was made up of nitrogen, methane, ammonia and water. The Earth also had many sources of energy such as radiation, UV light, electrical charges, and heat from volcanic activity. After the Earths crust had cooled off, bacterial organisms called prokaryotes came from a primeval soup of amino acids (building block for protien). Prokaryotes were extremely basic organisms which could bring in nutrients and extract waste. However, prokaryotes were unable to develop into anything advanced. A similar organism called eukaryotes evolved. Eukaryotes could eat up prokaryotes and acquire the functions of the eaten prokaryote. Eukaryotes also worked together and divided vital functions and eventually organised into tissues and then into organs. This was the beginning of advanced life. Organsims called Proto-Chordate developed which were similar to tadpoles. They roamed the oceans with the assistance of flagella-like movement. These organisms further developed their swimming ability as they became Chordates.

Chordates resemble current day fish. The next development was a mental one. Craniates developed a good sense of smell so that they could find food easily. They also developed a keen, quick response to stimuli. This was successful with the help of an advanced nerve system and a brain. Jawless vertebrate later followed by fish who possessed jaws. Lobefin were the next step. They were stronger than their predecessors and had lungs which is necessary for the quick intake of oxygen from the water. The Lobefin Tetrapod gets its oxygen from the air but still kept their bodies under the water to avoid the sun. Most of the fish features on the Lobefin Tetrapods such as the fin had disappeared. Also, they got joints (toes) and developed stronger muscles to fight gravity as they eventually made it onto land. Next came the Amniotes, who were more land orientated than some of the Lobefin Tetrapods that came before them because the eggs from the Amniotes could survive on land rather than being put under water. At this point, reptiles and mammals were hard to tell apart and generally taken the name Synapsids.

Mammals evolved out of the Synapsids but still laid eggs. The mammals had specialized teeth. Primates came next; and mostly lived in trees, which explains their development of opposable thumbs. 1.5 million years, the Hominid emerged, who was a more advanced version of the primate that walked upright and used tools to carry out basic tasks. From the Hominid came us, Homo sapiens. The modern theory of evolution is different than Darwin s and Wallace s theory in three ways; one, it addresses random genetic drift, two, it addresses inhereted characterists called genes, three, it suggests the accumilation of genetic changes in a species. The two main factions of the Modern Synethsis is is Punctuated Equilibrium and gradual change. Punctuated Equilibrium is the theory that major evolutionary advances occurred very rapidly. Gradual change theorizes that the changes occurred so slowly that they could not have been detected. Although many evolutionists disagree over the exact dates certain species sprang out, it is generally accepted that they occurred in that order. Darwin s and Wallace s theories are at the core of the modern theory of evolution and todays scientific knowledges has been added to bring a more precise guide to where we have come from.

The modern theory of evolution has been put together with all of today s theororetical and some factual sceintific knowledge. However, it lacks the most primitive yet absolute means of reasoning: logic! Modern evolutionary thinkiing supports itself with other theories and unproven scientific methods. A theory supported by a theory is just a theory, no matter how many theories ar backing it up. So many logical as well as biological and chemical laws refute the possibility of evolution occuring, that it is no longer ammusing. First, we must see how the physical evidence of evoltuion is obtained. Most, and almost all discoveries of Hominids are only a fragment or two such as a piece of a knee joints or mouth. For twenty years, evolutioninsts thought that Ramapithecus was the fist Hominid. This was based on only its teeth. It is illogical for evolutionists to assume that he/she has plotted tens of millions of years of history based on a tooth. Other discoveries based on teeth fragments are Dryopithecus and Hesperopithecus (which turned out to be a pigs tooth). One of the greatest hoax s in the evoltuion of evolution was Piltdown man.

Piltdown man was an apes jaw in a human skull. Scientists thought that it must have been an ape-man since it had characteristics of both man and ape. Very convienient, but wrong. It fooled the world for 40 years. A more recent example of evolutionary incompetence is Lucy. In order to proove that Lucy walked upright, the discoverers needed a knee joint, so they found a knee joint two miles away and 200 feet deeper in the earth. Lucy was quite the traveller wasn t she? This scenario is consistant with many evolutionary finds, where evolutionists tend to find the missing link or essential piece to the puzzle whether it means looking many miles away or dismissing the possiblity that out of hundreds of scattered pieces, one piece could be from an animal or other skeleton. Biological and chemical evidence shows that the first 2 humnas originated less than 200,000 years ago. This prooves that many paleontologists are wrong (with the laws of genetics and inheritance). Using blood tests, evolutionists say that we come from apes because our blood is 99% similar to thiers. However, this is decieving because using milk tests, the donkey is our closest relative. Cholesterol tests show that the rattlesnake is our closest relative.

Other types of blood tests indicate that the butter bean is our closest relative. Obviously, there is a test out there capable of linking any one animal or plant to another. Humans have a gene pool consisting of over 4000 genetic defects which is much much more than our gorilla relatives. Another problem with evolution is the common fruit fly. The fruit fly has remained the same for hundreds of millions of years. If species are constantly evolving, then why is the fruit fly exactly the same it was in the days of the dinosaurs? Evolution is about constant change bbut we have never come across an actual fossil which shows the transistion of one species becoming another occuring. The speicies involved in the transistion of evolution are identified but no intermediate species have ever been found. This is the greatest and most logical evidence against evolution. An example of this is the 50 million years it took for a fish to become an amphibian. There is no fossil with characteristics fo both (part fins, part feet etc). This is true for all animal and plant species.

Of course, evolutionists would say that an amphibian with fins wouldn t make sense, and they re right! If one species is to become another, a visible change must occur eventually. But there is out number the original and final species, but we have yet to discover a single one. Another thing evolution cant is the human eye. The human eye couldn t have evolve in one single jump or even a few jumps because jumps that size don t yield usefull outcomes. Useful outcomes , is what evolution is all about; the survival of the fittest, the continuous living of those species superior to others. Therfore, the evolution of the human eye is in itself, a great contradiction. As mentioned in the problems with Darwin s and Wallace s theories, it is hard to comprehend how complex the human body is. The storage capacity of the DNA in a cell is large enough to hold the Encyclopedia Britannica 60 times. And this is only one cell out of trillions working together and effectively. It is dissapointing for me to see scientists assume that, while breaking scientific laws, this DNA can be made just by some kind of random occurance. Life is far to complicated, intelligent and beautiful to have started from a couple Noble Gases.

Although evolution is just a theory, it has had a major influence on modern thinking. There is nothing wrong with making any theory; it is basically the formation of prinicples based on certain observations. However, the theory of evolution has had negative effect on on modern thinking. The negative effect it has had is the result of its own misinterpretation by much of the worlds population. This misinterpretation is the notion that evolution is scientific fact. Why do people think this? This can be blamed on the media and the education system. When we are young, we are taught in school that scientifically , this is where we came from. We must memorize these bits of information regarding Neanderthals and if we don t, we will do poorly or fail that class. It is ironic that in the same education system, we learn the laws which contradict the theory of evolution. Since we are taught that evolution is fact in school, the misinformation trickles into the media; movies, TV shows, magazines. Even some teachers believe evolution is scientific fact, they must have learned this in misleading university courses. If evolution is fact than why is it called a theory in the Websters Dictionary?

Obviously this misiturpretation hasnt affected the dictionary yet. Hitler used this misinterpretation to fuel his ideas in Mein Kampf which lead to the holocost. Hitler said that the Arian race was evolutionary more advanced than Jews and many other races. Hitler used German scientists to proove that they were genetically better than everyone else using evolution. Hitler cited the survival of the fittest as one of his justifications for his mass genocide of 6 million Jews and millions of Christians. Although this cannot be blamed on just evolution itself, but Social Darwinism, which is the political side of evolution. How long will it be until scientific fact is used against us again? It is extremely degrading to find that almost everyone, including intellegent educators, blindly accept that evolution is a fact. It is extremely dangerous to believe everything we re told, it is better to question everything because truth, after all, is an open mind. If evoltuion gave us a mind, let us use it. Those who will not use their brains are no better than those who have no brains, and so this mindless school of jellyfish, father, mother, son and daughter, become useful beasts of burden or trainers of the same. Also, the phycological affect of the theory of evoltuion on people must be examined.

If a child is taught that this is where he came from (apes), he will have a different outlook on life (whether conscious or rooted deep down) than he would if he had learned that he was made by God. The belief in God by the child will make him/her feel that she/he has a purpose and an obligation. However, if a child is taught that he/she came from apes, and that no divine intervention ever occurred, he/she would have the survival of the fittest outlook on life where he/she is expected by society and by themselves) to climb over everyone else to get to the top. This is a characteristic of capitalist society where money is the ultimate goal for many people. Obviously, the theory of evolution shouldn t be taught in the education system, but if it remains, then teachers should also include everything that s wrong with the theory of evolution in their lessons instead of a hypocrytically-biased new age look at the topic.

In conclusion, Darwin s and Wallace s theories were logical and concise based on their calculated oberservations. Although their theories have been proven incorrect by modern scientific laws and logic, their pursuit of truth beyond what the church at the time told them, was quite noble of them. The modern theory of evolution is a disgrace to scientific law and fact and an abomination to logic and common sense. Despite its being proven wrong, evolution is still being taught in educations systems around the globe; a major dissapointment and a kudo s to modern ignorance in the ironically} information age. However, people may believe whatever they like because belief is reality.


  1. MacLachlan, James. Children of Prometheus. Toronto: Wall & Thompson, 1989.
  2. Albert, Micheal. Gradualism. .
  3. Alfred Russel Wallace. spice/alfred.htm .
  4. Darwins Theory. .
  5. EVIDENCE #1.
  6. EVIDENCE #2.
  7. EVIDENCE #3. .
  8. EVIDENCE #4. .
  9. EVOLUTION: Darwin, Wallace and the Theory of Evolution. A dissenting view. wille/Index.htm .
  10. Genesis: The Story of Time-Primeval Soup. .
  11. Lu, Charlie. Prokaryotes Vs. the Eukaryotes. XOOM/charlielu/evolution/pvse.htm.
  12. Lu, Charlie. The Biological Aspects of The Origin of Life. .
  13. Morgan, Laurence A. The Modern Synthesis. A Theory of the Mechanism of Evolution. 1993.
  14. Nenki, · Questions with answers. 27 April 1999.
  15. THE FRACTIOUS FRUITFLY. rdwillia/Fruitfly.htm: 1998.

Cite this page

An Argument Against the Modern Theory of Evolution. (2021, Sep 27). Retrieved from

👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!

Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.

get help with your assignment