How is Charles Darwins theory of evolution not true?

Answer 1

The fossils we see in the record are different from the ones we see in living organisms. This means that the fossils represent an extinct species, which have similarities with the skeletal structures of living animals. Either the extinct species represent an ancestor of the said living species, or it shares similarities through a common ancestor.

The red chicken scenario is hypothetically a good way of showing evolution in process, but the poster forgot to add that there has to be variation between the chickens (i.e. at least one chicken/ one rooster required the perfect red feathers of the soil). The fox will hypothetically eat all but the red chicken (assuming it is perfectly hidden), but the mistake here is that it has nothing to mate with. If another red chicken survives that is the dominant allele for feathers in the population. Allelic frequencies have changed, thus evolution is occurring.

The influenza virus, and viruses in general, are a perfect example of evolution in process. Each season the virus mutates into something that is resistant to drugs. Thus, each season, people are urged to get a flu shot to the new strain of virus.

Another example is the HIV virus. Patients begin to become unresponsive to the medical treatment they are given. This happens because the virus in the patient has mutated to become resistant to the drug. If the virus did not mutate, it was killed by the drug, allowing only the mutated virus to spread and flourish through out the body.

All in all, the theory of evolution is accepted as a highly plausible explanation for the diversity of life, and in layman's terms it is "true", but for scientists it is HIGHLY LIKELY. We allow room for error :)