| Line 7: |
Line 7: |
| | # ''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> |
| | # The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably "grown" from the scales of reptiles<ref>http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/40/4/687.pdf</ref><ref> [http://palaeoblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/early-evolution-of-feathers.html]</ref> '''Although they have been found to have existed on reptiles serving beneficial functions other than flight.'''<ref>http://people.eku.edu/ritchisong/feather_evolution.htm</ref> | | # The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably "grown" from the scales of reptiles<ref>http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/40/4/687.pdf</ref><ref> [http://palaeoblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/early-evolution-of-feathers.html]</ref> '''Although they have been found to have existed on reptiles serving beneficial functions other than flight.'''<ref>http://people.eku.edu/ritchisong/feather_evolution.htm</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. '''This theory assumes that both parents need the same genetic mutation to pass it to their offspring, which is, of course, incorrect.''' <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. '''Except for numerous such records of organisms with short life cycles, and the understanding that observable change does not occur within one generation--a central tenet of evolution.''' | + | # 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. |
| | # 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. |
| | # 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]]. Some have suggested that the energy input from the sun allows local systems, like the earth, to obtain more order over time, and they would be absolutely correct. | + | # 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 [[Law of Large Numbers]] states that the average of independent and identically distributed random variables tends to revert to their average over time. Since this does not happen, this indicates that the population is, in fact, changing over time, as evolution suggests it ought to. | | # The [[Law of Large Numbers]] states that the average of independent and identically distributed random variables tends to revert to their average over time. Since this does not happen, this indicates that the population is, in fact, changing over time, as evolution suggests it ought to. |
| | | | |
| Line 36: |
Line 36: |
| | ===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>]] |
| − | # 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. '''Except for the nonsense beta-globin gene on Chromosome 11, which is also present in the gorilla and chimpanzee.''' <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> |
| | # While evolutionists argue that there are examples of "[[argument from poor design|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."<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/Functional_integration_indicates_design_(Talk.Origins) Functional integration indicates design], from [[CreationWiki]]</ref> | | # While evolutionists argue that there are examples of "[[argument from poor design|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."<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/Functional_integration_indicates_design_(Talk.Origins) Functional integration indicates design], from [[CreationWiki]]</ref> |
| − | # We have the perfect number of [[teeth]] to fit in our [[mouth]]s, except for those pesky wisdom teeth. 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 badly overcrowded in the front of 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 badly overcrowded in the front of 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. | | # 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. |
| Line 50: |
Line 50: |
| | | | |
| | === Irreducible Complexity=== | | === Irreducible Complexity=== |
| − | #It should be noted that Michael Behe, the man who coined the term "irreducible complexity," admitted under oath during the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial that his entire theory was unworkable, and that his argument concerning irreducible complexity was fundamentally flawed.
| |
| | # 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. <ref>[http://www1.pacific.edu/~e-buhals/GIRAFFE2.htm]</ref>[[Image:BacterialFlagellum.jpg|thumb|200px|right|[[flagellum|Bacterial Flagellum]] with rotary motor, courtesy of Access Research Network (Art Battson)]] | | # 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. <ref>[http://www1.pacific.edu/~e-buhals/GIRAFFE2.htm]</ref>[[Image:BacterialFlagellum.jpg|thumb|200px|right|[[flagellum|Bacterial Flagellum]] with rotary motor, courtesy of Access Research Network (Art Battson)]] |
| | # The development of wings in birds, as intermediary wing stubs would have no use, and be a competitive disadvantage. | | # The development of wings in birds, as intermediary wing stubs would have no use, and be a competitive disadvantage. |
| Line 70: |
Line 69: |
| | | | |
| | == Question evolution! campaign == | | == Question evolution! campaign == |
| | + | [[Image:Carl weiland.jpg|thumbnail|150px|right|Dr. [[Carl Wieland]] is the Managing Director of [[Creation Ministries International]] ]] |
| | ''See also:'' [[Question evolution! campaign]] and [[Atheists doubting the validity of atheism]] | | ''See also:'' [[Question evolution! campaign]] and [[Atheists doubting the validity of atheism]] |
| | | | |
| Line 78: |
Line 78: |
| | | | |
| | == Logical Conclusion == | | == Logical Conclusion == |
| − | 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. Does this blanket statement apply to all counterexamples? If so, then water does not freeze at 0 degrees celsius. | + | 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. |
| | {{evolution}} | | {{evolution}} |
| | | | |
| Line 96: |
Line 96: |
| | == References == | | == References == |
| | {{reflist|2}} | | {{reflist|2}} |
| − |
| |
| − | {{Counterexamples}}
| |
| | | | |
| | [[Category:Counterexamples]] | | [[Category:Counterexamples]] |
| | [[category:Evolution]] | | [[category:Evolution]] |