I have written a response to some of the most horrible fallacies and misunderstandings in this piece of text. I posted this on his blog (which is by the way unrelated).
---
Hello Mitanshu,
since nowhere on one of your other sites you offer a guestbook or forum, I decided to simply post here.
Question: Are you the one who wrote this crap: http://garg.mitanshu.googlepages.com/evolution.html ?
If so, you should be ashamed of yourself. Not only does it contain outright lies, it also shows a deep misunderstanding of what evolution is, and what science is.
<i>When you say theory, has it been verified?</i>
Yes, evolution has been verified. Speciation is observed, positive mutations are observed and natural selection is observed. Evolution also makes many predictions, which are constantly verified with each new fossil that is discovered.
<i>Has someone shown that life came from chemicals?</i>
This has nothing to do with evolution. I suggest you learn what evolution actually is before you start commenting on it.
<i>Example: Let us suppose I find some historical object in India and move to USA to show their. On my way, I am killed and the object is lost in Egypt (say). Now some other historian will find that and claim that the object belongs to an Egyptian civilization. Thus, original place of these objects are not trustworthy.</i>
I bet you have no idea what "in situ" means, or how archaeologists and paleontologists actually work. Are you proposing that a significant amount of fossils are actually moved out of context?
<i>Scientists conclude on the basis of 2, 3 observations which are quite insignificant to conclude such a big theory.</i>
What makes you say this? It is simply not true. Evolution is supported by an enormous and undeniable amount of data. You're simply making stuff up when you say there's only two or three observations.
There are countless fossils showing transitional characteristics, there are retroviruses, speciation is observed and documented, and lot's of other things such as geographic distribution or observed mutations all support the theory of evolution.
<i>According to this theory, evolution makes organisms better.</i>
No, it does not. Natural selection (not evolution, but the main driving force behind it) makes organisms fit better in their environments by selecting for traits that enable the organism to reproduce better.
<i>So, humans should have long span of life, stay more healthy, less sickness, more activeness etc. However, this prediction is totally opposite to what is observed.</i>
You are making stuff up again. Natural selection requires an organism only to be fit enough to reproduce, and the offspring to reproduce ad infinitum. In the case of humans this only means that you should live long enough to find a spouse, and then live long enough to take care of your offspring until they can support themselves. That is the bare minimum needed for natural selection.
Outcompeting occurs when another organism is better able to fill the same, limited niche.
<i>A research becomes a theory only when it predicts something correctly.</i>
Evolution has predicted tons of things correctly.
<i>If evolution is to make things better, then why are those organisms surviving from which others evolved? Darwin’s immediate forefather, monkey is still surviving. Why?</i>
(1) Monkeys are not our forefathers. If anything, great apes are, but technically those aren't either. Humans and great apes share a fairly recent common ancestor. That does not mean that we evolved from apes.
(2) Populations get split of from each other. In different environments, they will evolve in different directions. Even in similar environments the bottle neck effect and genetic drift will cause them to evolve differently.
<i>C-dating method to predict age of dead matter is not accurate and trustworthy.</i>
C14 dating does <b>not</b> 'predict age of dead'. It dates how long ago a living organism died. Not how old it was at the time, though of course with ring making trees you can then count how old it was.
Again: C14 dating does not say how old something was when it died, it says how long ago it died.
<i>Can it calculate the life of a human died a month ago?</i>
See previous point.
You clearly have <b>no idea whatsoever</b> of what C14 dating is, nor do you have any clue as to what evolution is.
<i>But, where are there fossils of half-evolved dinosaurs or other creatures?</i>
In museums and laboratories all over the world. Saying that they don't exist is denying reality. They are published and these articles are publicly available.
Here's a start: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
--
In conclusion: I have only addressed some of the many issues in this piece of crap you wrote. You clearly do not understand basic terms such as 'evolution', 'natural selection' or 'transitional fossil'. You have no clue what any of these really mean. You clearly have not studied the subject, or you would never claim that there are no transitional fossils.
I also suggest you read up on how C14 dating works and what it actually is. It is hardly ever used in evolutionary sciences, as C14 dating is limited to a maximum of 100.000 years ago.
