There are some natural biological phenomena that clearly contradict the theory of "survival of the fittest" and "use in and out of use" mentioned by those who advocate evolution.
The two animals that live in the deep sea, the octopus and the squid, spend their days in total darkness, and most of the fish that live in the same environment as them are blind. Strangely, the eye structure of octopuses and cuttlefish is roughly the same as that of human eyes. According to the "use-in-and-lose-retreat" hypothesis, they really don't need these big eyes. According to the survival of the fittest theory, their eyes do not increase survival competitiveness, so this example illustrates the error of evolutionary assumptions.
Uncompetitive parasites
Liver flukes, which live in sheep liver, lay about 15 million eggs at a time, and the eggs are excreted in the sheep's feces. Its way of reproduction is very special, there must be a kind of snail crawling over, the eggs attached to the snail, through the snail to transplant to the plant, and then the sheep eat the plant, back to the sheep liver to reproduce. In this process, about a dozen of the fifteen million eggs survive. This process of reproduction should not be easy to compete with other species in natural selection, but liver flukes have been reproducing in the same way for millions of years.
The otter that lives in the Australian tree is very slow and must climb to the ground when excreting, and although its excretion on the ground helps to increase the nutrients of the tree, because of its slow movement, it is easy for predators on the ground to hunt it. There are many animals and plants in the process of reproduction and survival, and there are unreasonable situations like this, and according to the theory of natural selection, they should be easily eliminated. But these plants and animals have lived for a long time, and the physiology of many plants and animals has not changed significantly for millions of years.
The evolution of horses is often cited as a step-by-step example. It is said that a fossil of a small species of four-hoofed beast called Archaeopteryx was found in the rock formations of the Eocene period, and some scientists claim that it is the ancestor of the modern horse, believing that its characteristics are consistent with that of the modern horse, indicating a gradual form of evolution. However, the archaeological evidence found so far does not fully support this view, and we are not yet sure that the Archaeopteryx was the ancestor of the present horse for the following reasons.
1.Some scientists have explained that the body size of the Archaeopteryx horse was smaller than that of the current horse, which shows that it gradually evolved from small to large and evolved to the current body shape of the horse. This is obviously not reasonable, because there are still large and small horse breeds that exist today, for example, miniature horses are much smaller than ordinary horses.
2.Both Archaeopteryx and modern horses had 18 pairs of ribs, while the one horse thought to be an intermediate form (orohippus) had 15 pairs of ribs, while the other intermediate form of the horse (Pliohippus) had 19 pairs of ribs.
3.The skeletal structure of Archaeopteryx horses is quite similar to that of modern hyraxes, which is not fully recognized. Some scientists believe that Archaeopteryx has no connection to horses and that it may be a variant of the hyrax.
In short, fossil evidence does not explain the theory of evolution from lower to higher organisms; Conversely, the fossils of many higher animals often appear suddenly in a rock formation. What exactly is the origin of life is still a puzzle for many scientists for many years.