| Line 3: |
Line 3: |
| | ==Counterexamples== | | ==Counterexamples== |
| | ===Logical examples=== | | ===Logical examples=== |
| − | # Evolution cannot explain the 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.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref> 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.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref>[[File:Ara macao -on a small bicycle-8.jpg|thumbnail|300px|right|[[Parrot]] feathers are a problem for evolutionists. For more information, please see [http://creation.com/parrot-fashion parrot feathers]<small>see picture source and license [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ara_macao_-on_a_small_bicycle-8.jpg here]</small>]] | + | # Evolution cannot explain the 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.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref> 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 - not resulting in inbreeding rest assured southerners!). 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. Or Africa, yes, from a small group in africa makes more sense.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref>[[File:Ara macao -on a small bicycle-8.jpg|thumbnail|300px|right|[[Parrot]] feathers are a problem for evolutionists. For more information, please see [http://creation.com/parrot-fashion parrot feathers]<small>see picture source and license [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ara_macao_-on_a_small_bicycle-8.jpg here]</small>]] |
| | # Parsimonious repetition of design elements throughout Creation, e.g. the eye's appearance in remarkably different species. For such complex structures to [[convergent evolution|arise repeatedly via evolution]] is [[statistical_impossibility | impossible]], as evolution is an inherently random and historically contingent process.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/homology.asp</ref>'''This is of course, ruling out the variety within eyes found in nature, and animals that have never evolved eye sight altogether.''' | | # Parsimonious repetition of design elements throughout Creation, e.g. the eye's appearance in remarkably different species. For such complex structures to [[convergent evolution|arise repeatedly via evolution]] is [[statistical_impossibility | impossible]], as evolution is an inherently random and historically contingent process.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/homology.asp</ref>'''This is of course, ruling out the variety within eyes found in nature, and animals that have never evolved eye sight altogether.''' |
| | # ''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. '''This theory ignores that beneficial mutations have been proven to happen on an observable daily basis.''' <ref>http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html</ref> | | # ''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. '''This theory ignores that beneficial mutations have been proven to happen on an observable daily basis.''' <ref>http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html</ref> |
| Line 9: |
Line 9: |
| | # 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. <ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=90743</ref> | | # 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. <ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=90743</ref> |
| | # 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. However, evolution resulting in the creation of new species generally takes place over long time periods, far longer than the human lifespan, so this is not surprising. | | # 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. However, evolution resulting in the creation of new species generally takes place over long time periods, far longer than the human lifespan, so this is not surprising. |
| − | # 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. | + | # 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. '''Bold text''' Fortunately, good made sure the world is full of psychopaths and poverty, to warn us all of the devil. |
| | # If evolution were true, then there would be more than one extant species under the claimed genus ''Homo''. However, this is not the case. | | # If evolution were true, then there would be more than one extant species under the claimed genus ''Homo''. However, this is not the case. |
| − | # Evolution should lead to the extinction of homosexuality in humans, as sinful homosexuals are unfit to contribute to the gene pool, yet to this day homosexuality continues to exist. | + | # Evolution should lead to the extinction of homosexuality in humans, as sinful homosexuals are unfit to contribute to the gene pool, yet to this day homosexuality continues to exist. '''Bold text''' Note that homosexuality is also prevalent in several animal species, making evolution even harder to understand. |
| | # The Theory of Evolution dictates that all organisms descended from single celled bacteria. Considering that bacteria is, and always has been, the most successful group of organisms, covering all areas of the globe in some of the most extreme environments, why would it have been advantageous to evolve into organisms that are so much more limited to the environments they can inhabit? Surely, staying as bacteria would be far more advantageous, due to their tolerence of extreme conditions, quick reproduction time, etc. | | # The Theory of Evolution dictates that all organisms descended from single celled bacteria. Considering that bacteria is, and always has been, the most successful group of organisms, covering all areas of the globe in some of the most extreme environments, why would it have been advantageous to evolve into organisms that are so much more limited to the environments they can inhabit? Surely, staying as bacteria would be far more advantageous, due to their tolerence of extreme conditions, quick reproduction time, etc. |
| | # The [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]] establishes that matter in the universe becomes more disordered over time when in the absence of intelligent intervention; the theory of evolution falsely claims that some systems can become more ordered, bringing to mind the impossible [[perpetual motion machine]]. | | # The [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]] establishes that matter in the universe becomes more disordered over time when in the absence of intelligent intervention; the theory of evolution falsely claims that some systems can become more ordered, bringing to mind the impossible [[perpetual motion machine]]. |