Counterexamples to Evolution

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DouglasA (Talk | contribs) at 14:35, 28 September 2011. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search
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 36 counterexamples are all incorrect and that evolution is true is only 16%.


Logical examples

  1. 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). 80% of all human diversity is found on the African continent, which accords with a human population growing from a small group in the post-Flood Middle East.[3]
    Parrot feathers are a problem for evolutionists. For more information, please see parrot feathers

    see picture source and license here
  2. 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]

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."[5]
  1. Animals flee to high ground before a deadly tsunami hits their shoreline, defying any plausible materialistic explanation.[6]
  2. Animals also sense when an earthquake is about to hit, once again defying atheistic explanations.[7]
  3. The extraordinary migration patterns of butterflies and birds, which lack any plausible materialistic explanation[8]
  4. Evolution does not account for the immense amount of information in the genome. While there are various definitions of information, and many types have been observed to occur naturally, DNA contains information that is processed to lead to a result predetermined by the content of that information. Strictly speaking it is inaccurate to refer to DNA as a "code" or "language," as many scientists are prone to doing. In fact DNA is more like a template, which produces messenger RNA (mRNA,) a new template with more appropriate bases for protein production. The mRNA essentially acts as a scaffold to which the appropriate amino acids attach to form a protein molecule. Rather than being a language containing words which each have a meaning, DNA is more like a jig or framework which allows a specific molecule of mRNA, and subsequently a specific protein sequence, to be assembled on it. In effect the information is the sequence of chemical reactions which that length of DNA will catalyse. Given the huge number of useless protein molecules which could be formed and the complexity of even a simple protein such as haemoglobin, this sequence could not have evolved by natural selection as the odds against the initial organism having a functional protein are too great.
  5. The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably "grown" from the scales of reptiles or any other known structure.[9][10]
    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)
  6. 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.
  7. Trematode parasites, like many other kinds, lack a plausible evolutionary phylogeny, though they can easily be explained by a teleological design.[11]
  8. In addition, evolution cannot explain the many complex sex-determining systems. For example, in most mammals, females have two identical sex chromosomes (XX in this case) whereas males two different ones (XY.) However in birds, reptiles, many insects, and other organisms, the situation is reversed to where the male has two identical sex chromosomes and the female has two different ones; for example male birds have a ZZ chromosome pair and females ZW. No evolutionist has proposed a mechanism by which mammals could have a different sex chromosome system from the reptile ancestors they allegedly share with birds.


  1. 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.[12]
  2. 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.”[13] Not surprisingly, many atheist evolutionists have done their utmost to deny animal altruism.
  3. 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.[14]
  4. 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.
  5. 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.

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.[15]
  1. 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. While overall the human genome most closely resembles the chimp one, giving rise to the evolutionist claim that chimps are our nearest relatives, this hypothesis would predict that after the last common ancestor of humans and gorillas the two genomes would steadily diverge. Therefore following the last common ancestor between humans and chimps, these DNA sequences would still be closer between them than with a species such as the gorilla that diverged earlier. Evolution cannot explain this.
  2. 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.[16]
  3. 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."[17]
  4. 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.

Missing fossils

The remarkable whale, which is a mammal, has no plausible evolutionary ancestor.
  1. The remarkable whale family, which are mammals, have no plausible evolutionary ancestor. It is also not credible that the very different toothed and baleen whales evolved from a common ancestor, and even less credible that they could have evolved from separate ancestors while having so many features in common.
  2. No transitional forms appear for horses, instead different and distinct horse-like animals appear in the fossil record[18]
  3. The enormous gaps and lack of intermediate species in the fossil record, once all the frauds are removed.
  4. 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.[19]
  5. Evolution from prehistoric forms has not been demonstrated for many species - no plausible earlier forms have been identified in the fossil record.

Irreducible Complexity

  1. 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. The okapi, which evolutionists claim is the closest relative of the giraffe, has no such valves. Evolutionary theory cannot explain this. [20]
    Bacterial Flagellum with rotary motor, courtesy of Access Research Network (Art Battson)
  2. The development of wings in birds, as intermediary wing stubs would have no use, and be a competitive disadvantage.
  3. 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.[21] 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.
  4. The organ and brain development required for retinal imagery require a base level of complexity, making a primitive form useless and impossible under evolution.[22]
  5. The ear contains three tiny bones that transmit sound waves from the eardrum to the cochlea.[23] 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.
  6. 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.
  7. "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.


  1. 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.
  2. 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.[24]

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


  1. Many of the counterexamples are indisputable, rendering each of their probabilities of being correct nearly 100%.
  5. Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296
  8. migration
  10. [1]
  12. Sarfati, Jonathan, The Prostate Gland–is it ‘badly designed’?, 1st August 2008 (Creation Ministries International)
  13. In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood [2]
  17. Functional integration indicates design, from CreationWiki
  18. Ray Comfort, in the Forward to the 150th anniversary edition of "On the Origin of Species"
  20. [3]
  21. [4]
  23. Neuroscience for Kids: The Ear