Changes

[[File:Darwin_monkey_cartoon.jpg|thumb|180px|Caricature of [[Charles Darwin]].  To date, no fossils of ''H. darwinicus orangutanishicus'' have been found.]]

[[File:Darwin_monkey_cartoon.jpg|thumb|180px|Caricature of [[Charles Darwin]].  To date, no fossils of ''H. darwinicus orangutanishicus'' have been found.]]

A [[science|scientific]] [[theory]] proven by the logical principal of [[deduction]]  cannot permit any counterexamples.  In order to be true, the [[theory of evolution|theory of evolution by natural selection acting upon random mutation]] must be able to explain the origins of '''''all''''' living things in terms of a purely [[naturalism|naturalistic view]]. '''If any of the counterexamples listed below is correct, then the theory of evolution fails'''.  Moreover, 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 counterexamples are ''all'' incorrect and that evolution is true is infinitesimally small (only a 5.1% chance that evolution is true with 58 possible counterexamples).

A [[science|scientific]] [[theory]] proven by the logical principal of [[deduction]]  cannot permit any counterexamples.  In order to be true, the [[theory of evolution|theory of evolution by natural selection acting upon random mutation]] must be able to explain the origins of '''''all''''' living things in terms of a purely [[naturalism|naturalistic view]]. '''If any of the counterexamples listed below is correct, then the theory of evolution fails'''.  Moreover, 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 counterexamples are ''all'' incorrect and that evolution is true is infinitesimally small (only a 4.6% chance that evolution is true with 60 possible counterexamples).

==Counterexamples==

==Counterexamples==

===Logical examples===

===Logical examples===

# 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)

# 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.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref>

# 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.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref>

#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

# 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.

 

===Wrong prediction===

===Wrong prediction===

# "the 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>

# "the 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>