12 of 23

Write now Article Tools

I should start out by pointing out that I do not a stand for evolution as though it were some hypothesis that is still to be proved, rather I stand as one who recognizes it as a well established scientific theory.

First of all, I would like to point out that it seems poeple who do not agree with this theory confuse this with Darwin's theory of natural selection. What I have seen are people writing arguments with titles "Disproving Evolution" (I realize that is also my title) and yet using arguments that critic Darwin's theory. Any respectable and credible evolutionary biologist knows that if Darwin's theory of natural selection were to be proved wrong, evolution would still be left unscathed. What people should realize is Darwin's theory is an attempt to explain evolution. For other theories one could study punctuated equilibrium.

Another critic of evolution that I have heard people like Ben Stein say is, " it does not really explain how life began". Evolution is not meant to expalin how life began rather how complexity arose. If one would like to read about a theory that attempts to explain the begining of life and how DNA and RNA came to be, the RNA world hypothesis is a good place to start.

Before I go on, I would like to point out that I am a physics major at Emory University and I was completely flabbergasted when I read one of the articles pointing to the second law of thermodynamics in order to give an argument against evolution. This shows a complete lack of understanding of biological systems. Am I to sincerely believe that a unicellular organism cannot engage in mutual symbiotic relationships and eventually coalesce into a simple multicellular organim because of the second law of thermodynamics? According to the writer who suggested this outrageous proposition planets could not be possible. "Why?" you ask. Well, since the second law of thermodynamics always implies increase in entropy, the little dust particles that were attracted to larger masses next to them (gravitational attraction) all disobeyed this law. While we are at it we can also disprove formation of civilizations because they also seem not to obey this law. The point is that this law mainly deals with heat. Simply throwing it around to your own selfish gains is a misuse of what is otherwise a simple and elegant law.

I was taken aback, when I also read an argument that utilized carbon dating in order to throw a certain uncertainity to the age of the earth

• 1
• 2
• next page >>

Add your voice

Know something about Disproving evolution?
We want to hear your view. Write now!