Daniel Flittner

Charles Darwin wrote a book entitled On The Origin of Species, using his observations from the Galapagos Islands. He observed multiple species of birds and other species of grass and plant life and compiled his research into one of the most influential manuscripts the world has ever read.

Darwin bases much of his theorem on his observations, but also on his belief in the genetic changes that happened. In his book, he spends quite a bit of time in the first few chapters explaining his assertions on how plant life changes. He makes many claims in those chapters, but there seems to be a distinct lack of evidence, or anything besides repetition, outside a few distinct species which he refers to multiple times. He then moves on to talk about natural selection, a process by which the dominant animals will slowly take over a species and their dominant traits will eventually manifest themselves in the species, causing the strongest to develop these traits and become a better, different species.

At the time of Darwin’s release of his book it seemed very plausible. People knew very little about genetics, and many were searching for an alternate belief about the world separate from the church and denied the existence of a creator. People were also questioning the variety of the animal kingdom, which had previously been poorly explained scientifically in a way that appealed to the intellectual man. The science of the time was still dominated by the church, and this heavily dissatisfied many of the up and coming free thinkers of the era, especially in the scientific world. They wanted to be free of the “superstition” of the church. They wanted their own hard cold evidence and discovery driven theory. In Darwin’s book they got what they had been craving and it was even written in the way that flattered their intelligence.

Darwin’s assertions were lightly supported at best in his opening chapters. However, the next set of claims he makes, while practical possibly in his time, should be rethought in modern times under the lens of the discoveries of genetics and its dominant and recessive traits. Darwin’s overall claim is titled Natural Selection, and he bases the rest of his theories off of it. This means any conclusion drawn from it will be falsified if their basic idea is undone.

Natural Selection is manifested in multiple different ways. One such way is through the fight for survival, in which multiple species are forced through time and under the direction of nature to duke it out until a victor emerges. This theory, excluding the mention of Nature as if it consciously chooses which species survives, is one most scientists agree exists. It is evidenced in most environments as different species struggle to live, eat, and carve a niche for themselves in the food chain. His other claim, however, must be brought under scrutiny for his use of genetics to prove himself right. In his supposition, he claims new species are developed, not discovered, and they are constantly evolving. Macroevolution is the name of the theory that states animals are continually in a state of flux. It states they are never in their final form as a species and can, through the work of time and Nature, in reference to the one with a seeming personality and conscious ability to choose, change their looks and be not only changed but split into two separate species, while the dominant ones evolve without the weaknesses of the former. This will allow new species to constantly adapt and be born and the weak ones die out as they are replaced. Their genetics will change over the course of time creating new ones as they go and changing their entire genetic makeup, so they will eventually become the ultimate species for their part of the world. This is very different from the belief in microevolution, which states species will change within themselves to adapt but will never leave their species or change to a separate genus or subspecies. It is impossible because of their genetic makeup.

Genetics and DNA were discovered many years after the publication of Darwin’s work. In fact, Darwin was long dead by the time its discovery was widely known. He never had the privilege of knowing what we currently know about the world and its workings, as well as our own inner workings. He wrote his theory without any knowledge of the way traits present in our bodies are passed on through many generations. Evidence shows how humans have changed within their own species by the various people groups around the world, but there has never been a movement away from our species to a more advanced species without our genetic shortcomings such as our lack of four legs or with two heads and three arms. All of these would be beneficial to the human race as they would empower us to be faster, smarter, and more efficient. Yet, throughout the thousands of years of human history, we have recorded only the occasional human born with genetic differences. What is even more intriguing is the fact the ones born with these differences are not referred to as superior in the least. Instead they are labeled as having disorders and are generally less able to function in society. We have not slowly eliminated the diseases that plague our species, and we have not genetically evolved to better be immune permanently. We are still affected by some of the very same diseases that plagued the people of Darwin’s time. Chicken pox was just as big of a deal back then as it is now, we just have medicine to combat it, not the genetic makeup superior to them. There is no proof of such massive genetic change in our single species much less any species in the world. Cats have not evolved a thinking conscience or the ability to talk and according to evolution they have been around even longer than humans.

Humans are said to have evolved from the apes, and by the theory of natural selection, once a species evolves from the one before it the ones with the worse genetics will slowly die off through the course of the fight for survival. However, there are still many different subspecies of apes thriving in the wild. Neither species as a whole is in any threat of becoming extinct leading to one of two conclusions: either we evolved from some other undiscovered extinct beast, or there is no such thing as vast dramatic genetic change.

In genetics are things called traits extant in every person. Two types are present in every person’s genetic makeup, dominant and recessive. They are activated in the creation of the person in her mother’s womb. These traits determine things such as skin complexion, eye color, hair type, height, and other key characteristics of the person. These are handed down generation by generation, and should, by Darwin’s theory, quickly be narrowed down to the few best in each category while the weaker ones are eliminated. Characteristics like blue eyes should have long ago been eliminated as they let in more light and are therefore a threat to the species’ survival at critical moments. Others should have been eliminated by Nature as well long before man became sophisticated, such as curly hair as it is more likely to get caught on a branch when running through the forest. Humans should have developed a transparent covering for our eyes to protect from wind and such while still being able to see, instead of having to resort to making one physically.

These are only major changes inside the species; it is even more impossible for species of their own accord to become a totally new species over the course of time. First of all the transition period for species would see them eliminated by themselves before they even got killed off by other greater species. Giraffes would have flooded their own brains with blood killing them instantly whenever they bent down to drink while in the in-between stage of developing a long neck and a powerful enough heart to pump blood up it, and developing the sponge that soaks up the blood and prevents an overflow into their skulls whenever they put their heads bellow their heart level. Even more so, it is genetically impossible for them to develop new characteristics and the same with humans. The human race cannot suddenly develop a totally new gene type that benefits them, it is just impossible. The pattern observed with genetics does not allow for it. Species do not simply change into other species. Our species has not eliminated the negative genes continually present from the beginning of human records and neither have they added any new genes other than the ones scientists pencil into their theories and forge into their archeological evidence.

Scientists pride themselves as being the best source of discovering our origins, but it is surprising they still continue to ignore the evidence of genetics under constant research in modern times. It continues to consistently add nail after nail into the coffin of evolution. The root of all sin is pride, and many men are arrogant enough to believe they can simply reject God and His teachings, which provide the answers to our origin, and is in fact backed up by science. The reason there is no way for new genetic characteristics to be added is because there’s no need. God created the animals and man. He created them the way they are with the ability to adapt within themselves to their surroundings, not to change themselves to become greater and move themselves up the food chain a few rungs. Man denies God and His teachings because he does not want to be held responsible for his actions. Many intelligent men have narrowed their minds not to see the facts plainly laid out for the same reason they have rejected God. They want to believe what they want and live the way they want, and despite all the evidence in the world to the contrary they will continue to cling to what they value as it gives them an excuse. Darwin never knew of genetics, and therefore while he still rejected God, his theory for the time seemed plausible if not very possible in their minds. Modern scientists and men in general have no excuse to hold onto this theory anymore, however, as the very thing they put their trust in betrays their view and shows it to be obsolete.