Changes

==Counterexamples==

==Counterexamples==

===Based on statistics===

===Based on statistics===

* 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.

* 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.{{fact}}

* ''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.

* ''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.{{fact}}

* The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably "grown" from the scales of dinosaurs<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>

* The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably "grown" from the scales of dinosaurs<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>

* 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>

===Lack of mechanism===

===Lack of mechanism===

* 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.

* 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.{{fact}}

* "Social insects" such as bees, ants, and termites, which have extremely ornate caste systems.  Where an insect fits is determined by its diet when young.  Evolution requires that both the genetics for the various castes, the genetics for caste determination, and the genetics for ''behavior'' allowing caste determination all appeared simultaneously.  Akin to the concept of [[irreducible complexity]], but on a higher (social) order, this is impossible given random chance.

* "Social insects" such as bees, ants, and termites, which have extremely ornate caste systems.  Where an insect fits is determined by its diet when young.  Evolution requires that both the genetics for the various castes, the genetics for caste determination, and the genetics for ''behavior'' allowing caste determination all appeared simultaneously.  Akin to the concept of [[irreducible complexity]], but on a higher (social) order, this is impossible given random chance.{{fact}}

* [[Ant]]s and other social [[insect]]s, for at least two reasons:  First, their complex social structure is evidence of [[intelligent design]]; second, since the overwhelming majority of individuals are workers and do not reproduce, they cannot perpetuate their genetic material, as evolution requires.

* [[Ant]]s and other social [[insect]]s, for at least two reasons:  First, their complex social structure is evidence of [[intelligent design]]; second, since the overwhelming majority of individuals are workers and do not reproduce, they cannot perpetuate their genetic material, as evolution requires.{{fact}}

* 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

* 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.{{fact}}

* 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>{{fact}}

* 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.

* 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.{{fact}}

* 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

* 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.{{fact}}

* 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.<ref>[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070410084136.htm]</ref>

* 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.<ref>[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070410084136.htm]</ref>

* 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.

* 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.{{fact}}

* Humans exhibit behaviors such as performing [[science]], creating [[art]] and [[music]], [[dance|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.

* Humans exhibit behaviors such as performing [[science]], creating [[art]] and [[music]], [[dance|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.{{fact}}

* Trematode parasites, like many other kinds, lack a plausible evolutionary phylogeny, though they can easily be explained by a teleological design.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/trematodes.html</ref>

* Trematode parasites, like many other kinds, lack a plausible evolutionary phylogeny, though they can easily be explained by a teleological design.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/trematodes.html</ref>

* 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''.

* 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''.{{fact}}

*  Several species of fish in the Arctic ocean have chemicals in their blood that essentially act as anti-freeze.  Evolution requires gradual change, leaving no plausible explanation as to how the fish survived before developing this trait.

*  Several species of fish in the Arctic ocean have chemicals in their blood that essentially act as anti-freeze.  Evolution requires gradual change, leaving no plausible explanation as to how the fish survived before developing this trait.{{fact}}

===Maladaptation===

===Maladaptation===

* [[Jellyfish]] in [[Hawaii]] swarm to the beaches roughly 9 to 10 days after each full [[moon]], for no apparent evolutionary reason<ref>http://www.aloha.com/~lifeguards/jelyfish.html</ref>

* [[Jellyfish]] in [[Hawaii]] swarm to the beaches roughly 9 to 10 days after each full [[moon]], for no apparent evolutionary reason<ref>http://www.aloha.com/~lifeguards/jelyfish.html</ref>

* 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.

* 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.{{fact}}

* 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.<ref>Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5757 The Prostate Gland–is it ‘badly designed’?], 1st August 2008 (Creation Ministries International)</ref>

* 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.<ref>Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5757 The Prostate Gland–is it ‘badly designed’?], 1st August 2008 (Creation Ministries International)</ref>

* 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.”<ref>''In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood''  [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes12.html]</ref>  Not surprisingly, atheist evolutionists have done their utmost to ''deny'' animal altruism (See especially [[Richard Dawkins]]' ''[[The Selfish Gene]]'', which denies altruism without providing any evidence to back up his enormous claim)

* 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.”<ref>''In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood''  [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes12.html]</ref>  Not surprisingly, atheist evolutionists have done their utmost to ''deny'' animal altruism (See especially [[Richard Dawkins]]' ''[[The Selfish Gene]]'', which denies altruism without providing any evidence to back up his enormous claim)

* 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>

* 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.

* 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.{{fact}}

* 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.{{fact}}

* 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.{{fact}}

===Missing fossils===

===Missing fossils===

* the [[immune system]] is irreducibly complex, as without one which is thoroughly developed, an organism would not be able to resist any infection<ref>Behe, Michael J. 1996. ''Darwin's Black Box'', New York: The Free Press, pp. 117-139.</ref><ref>[http://biology.creighton.edu/courses/BIO432/Evolution%2005.htm]</ref>

* the [[immune system]] is irreducibly complex, as without one which is thoroughly developed, an organism would not be able to resist any infection<ref>Behe, Michael J. 1996. ''Darwin's Black Box'', New York: The Free Press, pp. 117-139.</ref><ref>[http://biology.creighton.edu/courses/BIO432/Evolution%2005.htm]</ref>

* the extraordinarily long neck of the [[giraffe]].  It serves no function (the theory that giraffes use the long neck to eat from tree trunks was never true).  The presence of valves in the neck (which are necessary because of its great length) raises a question of how one could have arisen without the other being there first (see the irreducible complexity argument).<ref>[http://www1.pacific.edu/~e-buhals/GIRAFFE2.htm]</ref>  

* the extraordinarily long neck of the [[giraffe]].  It serves no function (the theory that giraffes use the long neck to eat from tree trunks was never true).  The presence of valves in the neck (which are necessary because of its great length) raises a question of how one could have arisen without the other being there first (see the irreducible complexity argument).<ref>[http://www1.pacific.edu/~e-buhals/GIRAFFE2.htm]</ref>  

* The development of wings, as intermediary wing stubs would have no use, and be a competitive disadvantage.

* The development of wings, as intermediary wing stubs would have no use, and be a competitive disadvantage.{{fact}}

* The [[flagellum]] a multi-part cellular motor which fails to function if a single part is removed is the classic example of [[irreducible complexity]] and cannot arise according to the theory of evolution.<ref>[http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html]</ref>

* The [[flagellum]] a multi-part cellular motor which fails to function if a single part is removed is the classic example of [[irreducible complexity]] and cannot arise according to the theory of evolution.<ref>[http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html]</ref>

*Many [[bat]]s which live in caves employ a type of sonar in order to navigate and find prey. Evolutionists propose that the bat evolved from a squirrel-like animal, but a squirrel would have no use for a sonar system. The bats can't fly without sonar, and an animal that can't fly doesn't need it. Therefore, bats must have been created with fully functioning sonar and flight.

*Many [[bat]]s which live in caves employ a type of sonar in order to navigate and find prey. Evolutionists propose that the bat evolved from a squirrel-like animal, but a squirrel would have no use for a sonar system. The bats can't fly without sonar, and an animal that can't fly doesn't need it. Therefore, bats must have been created with fully functioning sonar and flight.{{fact}}

* The organ and brain development required for retinal imagery require a base level of complexity, making a primitive form useless and impossible under evolution.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_1/retinal_imagery.htm</ref>

* The organ and brain development required for retinal imagery require a base level of complexity, making a primitive form useless and impossible under evolution.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_1/retinal_imagery.htm</ref>

===Uncategorized===

===Uncategorized===

*[[Pterosaurs]]; a scientist recently stated that they could not have flown, but why then did they evolve wings?<ref>http://www.physorg.com/news142086647.html</ref>

*[[Pterosaurs]]; a scientist recently stated that they could not have flown, but why then did they evolve wings?<ref>http://www.physorg.com/news142086647.html</ref>

* 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.{{fact}}

* Evolution requires that random mutations can cause one [[kind]] to change into another, but this has never been observed.

* Evolution requires that random mutations can cause one [[kind]] to change into another, but this has never been observed.{{fact}}

*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."<ref>[http://www.scienceline.org/2009/03/04/levitan-health-living-kidney-donor-transplant/]  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."</ref>  

*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."<ref>[http://www.scienceline.org/2009/03/04/levitan-health-living-kidney-donor-transplant/]  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."</ref>

== Logical Conclusion ==

== Logical Conclusion ==