Scientific Doubts about Evolution

More and more scientists are daring to step away from evolution, as a basic argument for how life came to be and develop on the planet. It just does not hold water to explain how life started and develops. The conclusion favouring these scientists is intelligent design but at the moment this has not got the well thought out theories which evolution has. It is still in its early stages of understanding and requires far more research into what it means before it can be defined scientifically, it only can be said to imply there is a god or gods which made life and matter.

Science should be based on observation, analysis and impartial application of evidence to draw a conclusion which fits the data found.

There are scientific reasons why evolution as a generic term should be questioned.

The first is survival of the fittest and natural selection do not always explain why species survive. A better term to apply may be natural balance rather than natural selection. The question has to arise why do we still have weak animals which are preyed on (e.g. rabbits) if we have places of plenty of predators (e.g. foxes). Natural selection states the prey should die out. As shown in nature studies though as the population of the prey are killed by the predators, there are too many predators to feed, hence they die off as they cannot feed themselves. So as the rabbit population decreases, means the numbers of foxes eventually decrease. As fewer foxes then the number of rabbits increase as they are not preyed upon, and as their numbers grow, there's more food for the remaining foxes, so their numbers increase back up again as they can feed on the more rabbits. The rabbits get killed off and the cycle repeats itself.

In a cyclical fashion lik...

... middle of paper ...

... research. Why? Because if the dinosaur footprints aren't millions of years old, then dinosaurs aren't either. If dinosaurs aren't millions of years old, the whole of dating of species by evolutionists and therefore by the entire secular scientific community has been proved to be faulty. It means we have to start all over again with how to date things because the present scientists are working on wrong assumptions and wrong methods.

Conclusion, more questions should be raised on evolution of species though there are undoubted proofs of variations within species. Creationists have long argued there are many varieties of trees and dogs but they are still trees and dogs. A dog did not evolve into a tree nor a tree into a dog. That's the point. If evolution is to be held in its high status it should have some substance to its claims. It should be proved scientifically.