Difference between revisions of "Counterexamples to Evolution"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Reverted edits by SamCoulter (talk) to last revision by Karajou)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
[[File:Darwin_monkey_cartoon.jpg|thumb|180px|Caricature of [[Charles Darwin]] ]]
 
[[File:Darwin_monkey_cartoon.jpg|thumb|180px|Caricature of [[Charles Darwin]] ]]
The [[theory of evolution]] does not permit the existence of any counterexamples.  '''If any of the counterexamples listed below is correct, then the theory of evolution fails'''.  Moreover, even if there is merely a 5% chance that each of these counterexamples is correct (and the odds are far higher than that<ref>Many of the counterexamples are indisputable, rendering each of their probabilities of being correct nearly 100%.</ref>), then the odds that these 68 counterexamples are ''all'' incorrect and that evolution is true is only 2%.
+
The [[theory of evolution]] does not permit the existence of any counterexamples.  '''If any of the counterexamples listed below is correct, then the theory of evolution fails'''.  Moreover, even if there is merely a 5% chance that each of these counterexamples is correct (and the odds are far higher than that<ref>Many of the counterexamples are indisputable, rendering each of their probabilities of being correct nearly 100%.</ref>), then the odds that these 70 counterexamples are ''all'' incorrect and that evolution is true is only 2%.
 
==Counterexamples==
 
==Counterexamples==
 
===Logical examples===
 
===Logical examples===
Line 20: Line 20:
 
[[Image:Feather image.jpg|thumb|300px|right|[[Harvard]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote: "It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random [[mutation]]s."<ref>[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes9.html Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296]</ref>]]
 
[[Image:Feather image.jpg|thumb|300px|right|[[Harvard]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote: "It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random [[mutation]]s."<ref>[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes9.html Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296]</ref>]]
 
# Animals flee to high ground ''before'' a deadly tsunami hits their shoreline, defying any plausible [[materialistic]] explanation.<ref>http://www.deseretnews.com/article/600105348/Utah-scientific-Did-animals-sense--and-flee--the-tsunamis-in-S-Asia.html</ref>
 
# Animals flee to high ground ''before'' a deadly tsunami hits their shoreline, defying any plausible [[materialistic]] explanation.<ref>http://www.deseretnews.com/article/600105348/Utah-scientific-Did-animals-sense--and-flee--the-tsunamis-in-S-Asia.html</ref>
 +
# Mutations cause a loss of information, rendering it mathematically impossible for mutations to advance the complexity of life.  Similarly, [[entropy]] (disorder) increases over time, making it impossible for order to increase on its own. According to [[Cornell University]] [[genetics|geneticist]] [[John C. Sanford]], not even the energy of the Sun, which might otherwise reduce entropy in a system not thermodynamically isolated such as the Earth, is capable of turning back the inexorable decline of our planet's collected genomes. <ref>[http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/respected-cornell-geneticist-rejects-darwinism-in-his-recent-book/]</ref> It seems reasonable to infer, then, that the [[End Times]] will come before or during the eventual collapse of the world's [[ecosystems]] that will come as a result of this irreversible deterioration.
 
# The fact that [[cicada]]s appear like clockwork every 13 years for some species, and every 17 years for others<ref>http://inside.msj.edu/academics/faculty/kritskg/cicada/faq.html</ref>
 
# The fact that [[cicada]]s appear like clockwork every 13 years for some species, and every 17 years for others<ref>http://inside.msj.edu/academics/faculty/kritskg/cicada/faq.html</ref>
 
# The extraordinary migration patterns of butterflies and birds, which lack any plausible materialistic explanation<ref>[[migration]]</ref>
 
# The extraordinary migration patterns of butterflies and birds, which lack any plausible materialistic explanation<ref>[[migration]]</ref>
Line 50: Line 51:
 
===Wrong predictions===
 
===Wrong predictions===
 
[[Image:Harvester-ants.jpg|thumb|205px|right|Ant behavior is the result of [[intelligent design]]. 19th century [[Europe|European]] naturalists were wrong about [[ant]] behavior. The [[Bible]] was correct about ant behavior.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm</ref>]]
 
[[Image:Harvester-ants.jpg|thumb|205px|right|Ant behavior is the result of [[intelligent design]]. 19th century [[Europe|European]] naturalists were wrong about [[ant]] behavior. The [[Bible]] was correct about ant behavior.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm</ref>]]
# Many DNA sequence blocks are common to humans and gorillas, but not to humans and chimps, even though the last common ancestor of gorillas and humans was supposedly millions of years before the last common ancestor of chimps and humans. Why would there be more commonality between two more distantly related primates than between two more closely related ones? Evolution cannot explain this.
+
# "[T]he loss and addition of large DNA sequence blocks are present in humans and gorillas, but not in chimps" even though "the gorilla is lower on the primate tree than the chimp and supposedly more distant to humans. How could these large blocks of DNA--from an evolutionary perspective--appear first in gorillas, disappear in chimps, and then reappear in humans?"<ref>http://www.icr.org/article/4624/</ref>
 
# Lack of any vestigial organs in the human body.  While evolutionists used to claim dozens or even hundreds of human traits and organs were vestigial, useless items disused through evolution, we now know what functions they all have, including the appendix  (the classic example). <ref>Ken Ham and Carl Wieland, ''Your Appendix: It's There for a Reason.'' (1997)</ref>
 
# Lack of any vestigial organs in the human body.  While evolutionists used to claim dozens or even hundreds of human traits and organs were vestigial, useless items disused through evolution, we now know what functions they all have, including the appendix  (the classic example). <ref>Ken Ham and Carl Wieland, ''Your Appendix: It's There for a Reason.'' (1997)</ref>
 
# Lack of any demonstrable vestigial parts of the human [[genome]]. While evolutionists often claim that regions of the genome are "[[junk DNA]]" and would not have been placed there by a designer, none have actually shown this to be true, and much so-called "junk DNA" has been shown to be useful.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/junkdna.html</ref>
 
# Lack of any demonstrable vestigial parts of the human [[genome]]. While evolutionists often claim that regions of the genome are "[[junk DNA]]" and would not have been placed there by a designer, none have actually shown this to be true, and much so-called "junk DNA" has been shown to be useful.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/junkdna.html</ref>
Line 56: Line 57:
 
# We have the perfect number of [[teeth]] to fit in our [[mouth]]s.  While creationism perfectly accounts for that result, evolutionism predicts a contrary result: As our [[face]]s evolved from chimpanzee-like faces to human faces, the shortening of the muzzle would have caused the teeth to become overcrowded in the mouth.
 
# We have the perfect number of [[teeth]] to fit in our [[mouth]]s.  While creationism perfectly accounts for that result, evolutionism predicts a contrary result: As our [[face]]s evolved from chimpanzee-like faces to human faces, the shortening of the muzzle would have caused the teeth to become overcrowded in the mouth.
 
# Human fertility is rapidly declining, disproving evolutionary improvement in humans and also suggesting a brief timeline for human existence.
 
# Human fertility is rapidly declining, disproving evolutionary improvement in humans and also suggesting a brief timeline for human existence.
 +
# Evolutionist theory predicts that in the case of [[convergent evolution]], a particular structure such as an eye that evolves in an optimal form in one species can later evolve in a suboptimal form in a different species.  No such result has ever been observed.
 
# Constantly mutating, drug-resistant [[pathogen]]s such as [[MRSA]] have been demonstrated to be the result of devolution rather than evolution.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/product/Genesis-of-Germs-The,5181,224.aspx Genesis of Germs], from [[Answers in Genesis]]</ref>  This is the exact opposite of what evolutionary theory predicts.
 
# Constantly mutating, drug-resistant [[pathogen]]s such as [[MRSA]] have been demonstrated to be the result of devolution rather than evolution.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/product/Genesis-of-Germs-The,5181,224.aspx Genesis of Germs], from [[Answers in Genesis]]</ref>  This is the exact opposite of what evolutionary theory predicts.
  
Line 85: Line 87:
 
===Uncategorized===
 
===Uncategorized===
 
   
 
   
 +
# No one has ever observed a new species emerge from an old one, either in captivity or the wild. Surely, if evolution were real someone, somewhere would have seen this.
 
# Evolution would result in modern languages having one common ancestral language, and for nearly a century linguists insisted that there must be one.  There is not, and linguists now accept that there are completely independent families of languages.
 
# Evolution would result in modern languages having one common ancestral language, and for nearly a century linguists insisted that there must be one.  There is not, and linguists now accept that there are completely independent families of languages.
 
# No other animal exhibits [[religion]]. A far better explanation than random mutations is that humans were given the capacity to be religious by a loving God who wants a relationship with His creations.
 
# No other animal exhibits [[religion]]. A far better explanation than random mutations is that humans were given the capacity to be religious by a loving God who wants a relationship with His creations.

Revision as of 15:50, 19 August 2011

Caricature of Charles Darwin

The theory of evolution does not permit the existence of any counterexamples. If any of the counterexamples listed below is correct, then the theory of evolution fails. Moreover, even if there is merely a 5% chance that each of these counterexamples is correct (and the odds are far higher than that[1]), then the odds that these 70 counterexamples are all incorrect and that evolution is true is only 2%.

Counterexamples

Logical examples

  1. The annual rate of extinction of species far exceeds any plausible rate of generation of species. Expanding the amount of time for evolution to occur makes evolution even less likely.
  2. Evolution cannot explain artistic beauty, such as the brilliant autumn foliage and staggering array of beautiful marine fish, both of which originated before any human to view them; this lacks any plausible evolutionary explanation.
  3. Lack of genetic diversity among the Homo sapiens species. Were evolution and the Old Earth theory true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance.[2] Some scientists have stated that a troop of 55 chimpanzees contains more genetic diversity than the entire human race; this would support the idea that all chimps are descended from a relatively large initial population while all humans are descended from a much smaller initial population (two people, perhaps).[3]
    Parrot feathers are a problem for evolutionists. For more information, please see parrot feathers

    see picture source and license here
  4. Parsimonious repetition of design elements throughout Creation, e.g. the eye's appearance in remarkably different species. For such complex structures to arise repeatedly via evolution is impossible, as evolution is an inherently random and historically contingent process.[4]
  5. Pleiotropy, the fact that a change of a single gene can have several different effects, renders the "improvement" of animals by random mutation impossible, as any mutation with a potentially beneficial effect will be coupled with one or more other potentially lethal effects.[5]
  6. The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably "grown" from the scales of reptiles[6][7]
  7. For evolution to be true, every male dog, cat, horse, elephant, giraffe, fish and bird had to have coincidentally evolved with a female alongside it (over billions of years) with fully evolved compatible reproductive parts and a desire to mate, otherwise the species couldn't keep going. [8]
  8. There are no historical records of anyone directly observing one species evolving into another, which would certainly be something worth writing about. Surely of the millions of species we have, someone would have witnessed one come into existence had it evolved.
  9. If evolution were to explain where human beings come from, then every personality type should benefit human life. This is clearly untrue because the world is filled with liars, psychopaths, and murderers. These traits clearly do not benefit humanity.
  10. According to evolutionary theory, cavemen with no scientific or genetic knowledge domesticated the wolf (canis lupus) into a different species - the dog (canis familiaris). However, many experts on dog genetics have created hundreds of different dog breeds over the years through selective mating, but they are all the same species. If the cavemen could create new species seemingly by accident, it stands to reason that experts could do so with intentional effort. But since this has not been done, the wolf-dog example seems false.

Lack of mechanism

Harvard biologist Ernst Mayr wrote: "It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations."[9]
  1. Animals flee to high ground before a deadly tsunami hits their shoreline, defying any plausible materialistic explanation.[10]
  2. Mutations cause a loss of information, rendering it mathematically impossible for mutations to advance the complexity of life. Similarly, entropy (disorder) increases over time, making it impossible for order to increase on its own. According to Cornell University geneticist John C. Sanford, not even the energy of the Sun, which might otherwise reduce entropy in a system not thermodynamically isolated such as the Earth, is capable of turning back the inexorable decline of our planet's collected genomes. [11] It seems reasonable to infer, then, that the End Times will come before or during the eventual collapse of the world's ecosystems that will come as a result of this irreversible deterioration.
  3. The fact that cicadas appear like clockwork every 13 years for some species, and every 17 years for others[12]
  4. The extraordinary migration patterns of butterflies and birds, which lack any plausible materialistic explanation[13]
  5. Evolution does not account for the immense amount of information in the genome, as well as the origin of the information-processing systems in the cell. Information always has a sender, who must be God in this case.
  6. The manner in which chickens return to their chicken coops at the same time, and enter the chicken coops in the same order, each day
  7. Symbiosis - There are many examples where creatures rely on each other to survive which could not arise through evolution. Grass cannot survive without a certain fungus that helps it fix nitrogen from the atmosphere and the fungus can't survive without the grass. They must have appeared on earth at the same time.[14]
    The beauty of God's creation, such as autumn foliage, cannot adequately be explained through the evolutionary paradigm. See: Argument from beauty

    (Flickr picture, see: license agreement)
  8. Consciousness - No animal displays self-awareness (such as clothing), morality, tool-making, or self-sacrifice to the same extent that man does. It is unclear how a random mutation could have arisen which accounts for humanity's significantly higher cognitive ability.
  9. Humans exhibit behaviors such as performing science, creating art and music, dancing, and a number of other intellectual and artistic behaviors which could not have been produced by random mutations. There is no known evolutionary reason why these should be favored.
  10. Trematode parasites, like many other kinds, lack a plausible evolutionary phylogeny, though they can easily be explained by a teleological design.[15]
  11. In addition, evolution cannot explain the many complex sex-determining systems. For example, in most mammals, females have two X chromosomes whereas males have an X and Y chromosome, but in birds, many insects, and other organisms, the situation is reversed. In flies, sex is determined the ratio of non-sex chromosomes to X chromosomes (so that males have only one X whereas females have two). It is impossible for evolution to create these new sex-determining systems ex nihilo.
  12. Several species of fish in the Arctic ocean have chemical substances in their blood that essentially act as an anti-freeze. Evolution requires gradual change, leaving no plausible explanation as to how the fish survived before developing this trait.
  13. The blood of tunicates such as the sea squirt is based on the rare element vanadium instead of the abundant iron used in other vertebrates, which would have required a complete re-tooling of its entire circulatory biochemistry [16].
  14. Animals exist in isolated places without any plausible motivation or means for getting there, such as on remote islands or more than 1200 feet high on top of the vertical cliffs of Devils Tower. Even humans (though large and intelligent) were unable to ascend the peak until 1893, and required specialized climbing equipment.

Maladaptation

  1. Jellyfish in Hawaii swarm to the beaches roughly 9 to 10 days after each full moon, for no apparent evolutionary reason[17]
  2. Variation in chromosome count (ploidy) is impossible in evolution. One member of a species with 2 sets of chromosomes cannot mate with a member with 4. Thus, for the chromosome count of a species to change (and thus account for the variety of counts in nature) a vast portion of a species would have to evolve a new chromosome set simultaneously.
  3. The human prostate surrounds the urethra and in doing so provides many benefits. Evolutionists consider the structure to be poor design, which should mean that natural selection would have eliminated that design.[18]
  4. Inability to account for widely observed altruism among animals, as it reduces an animal's ability to survive. “The existence of altruism between different species — which is not uncommon — remains an obstinate enigma.”[19] Not surprisingly, many atheist evolutionists have done their utmost to deny animal altruism.
  5. Too many deleterious mutations. Each generation of humans has far more negative mutations than the posited natural selection can remove. Evolution is thus impossible as species would become nonviable long before they could diverge.[20]
  6. Evolution should have removed HIV from the human race as we would have built an immunity to it, much like bacteria do to anti-biotics, yet we have not. In fact the continued existence of disease is proof against evolution as natural selection would have left only humans who were immune to them.
  7. Schizophrenia is a disorder that causes a person to be unable to distinguish fantasy from reality. It is an inherited disorder and affects nearly 1 in 100 people. Scientists still have yet to explain what causes it, but one this is for certain, if evolution were true, it should have eliminated such an obvious disability long ago.
  8. Male-pattern baldness has no evolutionary explanation. It is not observed in non-human species, and because it decreases the likelihood of finding a mate, it should have been selected out a long time ago.
  9. Menopause renders women infertile, but this is clearly counter to evolutionary advantage. Evolutionists claim that only individuals capable of mating are useful to the species (see above discussion regarding social insects), so menopause should have been selected against by now to give women the best chance for producing the maximum number of offspring. However, several theories have been put forward to explain the apparent paradox. Firstly, that since the risks associated of bearing children increase after a certain age, it is little advantage in running the risk, especially as the mother may already have children that rely on her for survival. Secondly, in terms of groups, the menopause leads to 'post-reproductive grandmothers' who can assist their own offspring with raising their children [21]

Wrong predictions

Ant behavior is the result of intelligent design. 19th century European naturalists were wrong about ant behavior. The Bible was correct about ant behavior.[22]
  1. "[T]he loss and addition of large DNA sequence blocks are present in humans and gorillas, but not in chimps" even though "the gorilla is lower on the primate tree than the chimp and supposedly more distant to humans. How could these large blocks of DNA--from an evolutionary perspective--appear first in gorillas, disappear in chimps, and then reappear in humans?"[23]
  2. Lack of any vestigial organs in the human body. While evolutionists used to claim dozens or even hundreds of human traits and organs were vestigial, useless items disused through evolution, we now know what functions they all have, including the appendix (the classic example). [24]
  3. Lack of any demonstrable vestigial parts of the human genome. While evolutionists often claim that regions of the genome are "junk DNA" and would not have been placed there by a designer, none have actually shown this to be true, and much so-called "junk DNA" has been shown to be useful.[25]
  4. While evolutionists argue that there are examples of "bad design" in the bodies of many organisms, such as "flaws" in the human spine and sinus system, evolutionists fail to realize that, by their own theory, natural selection should have removed these things! The simpler explanation, that these represent degeneration from an original, created perfect form, is the superior one. In other word, as CreationWiki notes, such "flaws" are actually "a result of deterioration, resulting from Man's Fall."[26]
  5. We have the perfect number of teeth to fit in our mouths. While creationism perfectly accounts for that result, evolutionism predicts a contrary result: As our faces evolved from chimpanzee-like faces to human faces, the shortening of the muzzle would have caused the teeth to become overcrowded in the mouth.
  6. Human fertility is rapidly declining, disproving evolutionary improvement in humans and also suggesting a brief timeline for human existence.
  7. Evolutionist theory predicts that in the case of convergent evolution, a particular structure such as an eye that evolves in an optimal form in one species can later evolve in a suboptimal form in a different species. No such result has ever been observed.
  8. Constantly mutating, drug-resistant pathogens such as MRSA have been demonstrated to be the result of devolution rather than evolution.[27] This is the exact opposite of what evolutionary theory predicts.

Missing fossils

The remarkable whale, which is a mammal, has no plausible evolutionary ancestor.
  1. The remarkable whale, which is a mammal, has no plausible evolutionary ancestor.
  2. No transitional forms appear for horses, instead different and distinct horse-like animals appear in the fossil record[28]
  3. The enormous gaps and lack of intermediate species in the fossil record, once all the frauds are removed.
  4. No clear transition from unicellular to multicellular organisms.
  5. Mammalian fur and body hair. There is no known evolutionary pathway for the development of fur, and no fossil evidence of hair evolving from scales, even though it survives very well.[29]
  6. A lack of any evolution from prehistoric forms has been demonstrated for many species.
  7. Where are the human ancestors? (That is, the ones that weren't frauds.)

Paradoxical fossils

  1. The fact that new discoveries, such as Raptorex, routinely call into question key dogmas of evolutionism and require the "immutable" laws of evolution to be reassessed. By contrast, creationism has prevailed in the face of scientific discoveries for six thousand years.

Irreducible Complexity

  1. The immune system is irreducibly complex, as without one which is thoroughly developed, an organism would not be able to resist any infection[30][31]
  2. The extraordinarily long neck of the giraffe. The giraffe's heart creates immense pressure to drive blood up the neck to the brain. Because of this there are valves in the neck which automatically restrict the blood flow when the giraffe lowers its head to drink. Without these valves the sudden increase in blood pressure as the heart no longer needs to overcome gravity would rupture the arteries in the brain and kill the giraffe. However the giraffe could not have evolved a long neck without the valves and had no need to evolve the valves unless it had a long neck. Evolutionists cannot explain this. [32]
    Bacterial Flagellum with rotary motor, courtesy of Access Research Network (Art Battson)
  3. The long legs of the giraffe: if a random mutation led to long legs without a long neck or vice versa, the animal would be unable to survive.
  4. The development of wings, as intermediary wing stubs would have no use, and be a competitive disadvantage.
  5. The flagellum of certain bacteria contain a multi-part cellular motor which fails to function if a single part is removed. This is the classic example of irreducible complexity as publicised by Professor Michael Behe.[33] Because the flagellum must have all its parts to function it could not have evolved and therefore must have been designed by an intelligent being. At the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial, Professor Ken Miller attempted to rebut this argument by pointing out that if 42 parts of the flagellum are removed what remains is a fully functional Type III Secretory System, used by some bacteria to inject toxins into target cells. While Miller's claim is factually accurate, it fails to explain how the T3SS could simultaneously add 42 parts to create a working flagellum.
  6. The organ and brain development required for retinal imagery require a base level of complexity, making a primitive form useless and impossible under evolution.[34]
  7. Blood clotting is a unique process unlike any other in the body, without which the smallest cut could be life-threatening. Only a fully developed clotting system is functional and therefore could not have evolved through intermediate stages.
  8. The ear contains three tiny bones that transmit sound waves from the eardrum to the cochlea.[35] Because of the complicated arrangement of those bones, transitional forms (which have never been found) would have served no purpose. Evolutionists claim that these bones used to form part of the reptilian jaw joint, but no intermediate fossil with half jaw/half ear has ever been found, and there is no way evolutionism can explain how a jaw becomes an ear.
  9. Bony skeletons represent an example of irreducible complexity, since only a fully formed, complete skeleton is of any use whatsoever, while having only one or some few number of bones in an otherwise invertebrate creature is hardly advantageous. It is inconceivable to think that some random mutation could have resulted in the formation if an entire bone system in a creature which was previously invertebrate.
  10. "Social insects" such as bees, ants, and termites, which have extremely complex caste systems. Where an insect fits into the system is determined by its diet when young. Evolution requires that the genes for the various castes and the genes for caste-specific behavior all appeared simultaneously. Akin to the concept of irreducible complexity, but on a higher (social) order, this is impossible given random chance. The complex social structure of these insects is evidence of intelligent design; also, since the overwhelming majority of individuals are workers and do not reproduce, they do not perpetuate their genetic material, as evolutionism claims all living things must do.

Uncategorized

  1. No one has ever observed a new species emerge from an old one, either in captivity or the wild. Surely, if evolution were real someone, somewhere would have seen this.
  2. Evolution would result in modern languages having one common ancestral language, and for nearly a century linguists insisted that there must be one. There is not, and linguists now accept that there are completely independent families of languages.
  3. No other animal exhibits religion. A far better explanation than random mutations is that humans were given the capacity to be religious by a loving God who wants a relationship with His creations.
  4. Evolution requires that random mutations can cause one kind to change into another, but this has never been observed.
  5. The existence of two symmetrical kidneys, which are unnecessary in most people, lacks a plausible evolutionary explanation based on functionality alone. Because evolution falsehoods mislead most people into thinking they need their second kidney, "the average waiting time for the organs from a deceased donor in the United States is five years" and "3,916 patients waiting for a kidney in 2006 died before one became available."[36]
  6. Circadian phenomena -- internal 24-hour clock mechanisms of humans and other living beings -- defy material explanation. Examples include how some people are unable to change the timing of their need for sleep for each day, and how plants exhibit clock-like behavior regardless of their exposure to sunlight. In addition, there is a weekly clock cycle for many phenomena, which has a clear biblical basis but defies any materialistic explanation.[37]
  7. If religion were as harmful as evolutionists claim, natural selection would have phased it out, but it continues, meaning evolutionists are wrong about both evolution and the supposed harmful effects of religion.

Logical Conclusion

As scientific theories require that their laws be immutable, the existence of merely one counterexample disproves the truth of the rule. Thus, if evolution fails to account for any one of these items (or countless others), it must be discarded.

See also

External Links

References

  1. Many of the counterexamples are indisputable, rendering each of their probabilities of being correct nearly 100%.
  2. http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7
  3. http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7
  4. http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/homology.asp
  5. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/beneficial-mutations-in-bacteria
  6. http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/40/4/687.pdf
  7. [1]
  8. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=90743
  9. Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296
  10. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/600105348/Utah-scientific-Did-animals-sense--and-flee--the-tsunamis-in-S-Asia.html
  11. [2]
  12. http://inside.msj.edu/academics/faculty/kritskg/cicada/faq.html
  13. migration
  14. [3]
  15. http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/trematodes.html
  16. http://www.earthlife.net/inverts/ascidiacea.html
  17. http://www.aloha.com/~lifeguards/jelyfish.html
  18. Sarfati, Jonathan, The Prostate Gland–is it ‘badly designed’?, 1st August 2008 (Creation Ministries International)
  19. In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood [4]
  20. http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7
  21. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11223885
  22. http://ed5015.tripod.com/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm
  23. http://www.icr.org/article/4624/
  24. Ken Ham and Carl Wieland, Your Appendix: It's There for a Reason. (1997)
  25. http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/junkdna.html
  26. Functional integration indicates design, from CreationWiki
  27. Genesis of Germs, from Answers in Genesis
  28. Ray Comfort, in the Forward to the 150th anniversary edition of "On the Origin of Species"
  29. http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/40/40_4/Bergman.htm
  30. Behe, Michael J. 1996. Darwin's Black Box, New York: The Free Press, pp. 117-139.
  31. [5]
  32. [6]
  33. [7]
  34. http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_1/retinal_imagery.htm
  35. Neuroscience for Kids: The Ear
  36. [8] This article observes, "As a recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found, living kidney donors live as long or longer and enjoy better quality of life than the general population."
  37. http://www.biblestudy.org/godsrest/mysterious-seven-day-cycle-in-plants-animals-man-2.html