Evolution is a whimsical fantasy and nothing more.

By Garima Shah

One major gap in the theory of evolution that evolutionists still have to explain is where the major organs came from. According to the concept of endosymbiosis, prokaryote takes amino acids inside and becomes a eukaryote. However, there is no concept to explain how a prokaryote got a brain. There is no clear explanation for where brains came from. The human brain is a complex structure made up of more than 100 billion neurons. It couldn't just have appeared out of nowhere. How about the stomach? Where did the digestive juices come from and how did the stomach develop?Even if the brain, stomach, and other organs developed slowly how did early animals live with a partial stomach? As we saw while doing dissections, animals like rats which need more energy to function have larger small intestines while amphibians like frogs have smaller small intestines because they don’t need as much energy. Since animals need the stomach, intestines, and the digestive track to get energy, how did animals get energy without them? Another aspect of the theory that raises doubt is why humans have body parts that seem to have no purpose while animals that supposedly evolved before humans don’t have these body parts. For example, the appendix is a body part that humans, apes, and rabbits posses. Yet, it does not seem to have a purpose. In fact, many adults get it removed due to inflammation. If there is no use for the appendix then why do we--the most evolved creatures-- have it while other lesser evolved species don’t. Shouldn’t it have gone away over time in the humans? Another example is the gall bladder. When comparing a frog and a rat, the gallbladder is a vestigial feature in the rat. Then why do we as humans have it if we are more evolved than rats? According to Matthew Hoffman, removing the gallbladder in a healthy human does not cause any major problems in the digestive system or in the person’s health. Therefore, there is no reason humans should have gallbladders according to evolution and it should be a vestigial feature.There are multiple gaps in the theory of evolution that have to do with where major organs came from and why humans have body parts that have no purpose.

A big part of Darwinian evolution is the idea of natural selection. Natural selection is the idea that organisms adapt to their surroundings and the ones that have adapted the best are the ones who survive resulting in the offspring have the genes of the better-adapted organisms. If this is true then why are humans not immune to diseases such as the flu.There are a few humans who are immune to the flu. Then shouldn't their genes get passed down to their offspring and become the dominant trait? When these humans reproduce their DNA with the mutated genes that make them immune to the flu should be passed on through the process of Meiosis and sexual reproduction. The parent whose DNA is mutated should create haploid daughter cells that contain the necessary DNA for this mutation to occur repeatedly. But that's not the case. Scientists have not been able to figure out what keeps these select few individuals immune from diseases like the flu on a genotype level(Taylor,2011). Also if mutations or mutagens should be able to change DNA in an organism, then why are predators not immune to poison from their prey?In order to survive predators need to eat. Their bodies will convert the prey they eat into energy through the process of cellular respiration.By combining the glucose molecules found in the food with oxygen their bodies will produce ATP which is energy. Without ATP molecules to power the body the organism would die.Therefore, predators should have co-evolved with their prey and become immune to their poison in order to survive. They should have adapted to the environment according to Charles Darwin’s theory or Evolution. There are also predators called Apex predators. Apex predators have no natural predators. If the theory of evolution was true then shouldn’t there be some species that evolved along these apex predators and could overtake them. Clearly, there are many problems in Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution and natural selection, especially with adaptations and co-evolution.

Important evidence for evolution comes from fossils and radiometric isotope methods which are used to date fossils. Yet, there are many gaps in the fossil records and there is no evidence of transitional creatures. According to evolutionists, traits in a population change over time. However, there should be a fossil record of transitional creatures where the DNA is in the middle of changing. Another problem with fossils is that scientists use radiometric isotope methods to date them. Radiometric isotope dating uses known decay rates of radioactive isotopes and their byproducts to determine the age of a rock. The age of the fossil is determined by taking an educated guess while knowing the age of the rock surrounding it. Radiometric isotope dating for fossils can be inaccurate since it relies on knowing the half-life of a compound. Radiometric dating is also very hard and easy to mess up. It requires professionals. Radiometric dating does not work on fossils or sedimentary rock and some other samples. Basing, evidence for evolution of the age of a fossil which is usually determined by somewhat unreliable of radiometric isotope dating methods shows that evolution is just a fantasy.

Finally, evolutionists argue that our DNA is proof of evolution because it is similar to other animals that have similar features as us. But, while doing an NCBI blast for homo sapiens(humans), Rana Pipiens(frogs), and Perca fluviatilis(perch) the pedigree tree showed that humans were closer to the fish than they were to the frog. According to Charles Darwin’s theory, humans should be closer to the frog because they are more evolved than the fish. The DNA that was compared was the cytochrome C. The NCBI blast has just disproved a big part of the evolution theory since it is based on Humans being closer to species that have evolved closer in time with them.

All in all, evolution is just a whimsical fantasy. The theory has multiple gaps and holes that evolutionists don’t know how to fill. The ideas of natural selection and adapting to the environment have many examples contradicting them. Fossils are not reliable proof because there are gaps and the dating method is a little inaccurate. There are many other reasons evolution is just a theory and is not a fact. Evolution should not be taken seriously unless solid evidence can be provided.