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.]]

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, 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 73 counterexamples are ''all'' incorrect and that evolution is true is only 2.4%. '''However, this makes no logical, mathematical sense, deriving its argument from claims and numbers that have no basis and were simply fabricated. For example, the "5%" chance that any given counterexample is correct has no foundation--one cannot attach a probability of correctness to a controversial statement. This also holds for the statement that "many of the counterexamples are indisputable, rendering each of their probabilities of being correct nearly 100%." Where does this claim come from? Who determines the "indisputable-ness" of any given statement? Where did the figure of 100% come from? There is no rational basis for this argument.'''

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, 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 73 counterexamples are ''all'' incorrect and that evolution is true is only 2.4%.

==Counterexamples==

==Counterexamples==

===Logical examples===

===Logical examples===

# The annual rate of extinction of species far exceeds any plausible rate of generation of species.  Expanding the amount of time for evolution to occur makes evolution even less likely. '''''This is because not only is the earth undergoing an extinction pattern, but the effects of human development on the earth is hindering the ability of species to generate and only helping the rate of extinction'''''

# The annual rate of extinction of species far exceeds any plausible rate of generation of species.  Expanding the amount of time for evolution to occur makes evolution even less likely.

# Lack of genetic diversity among the ''Homo sapiens'' species.  Were evolution and the old earth true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance.'''''In the vast scheme of things, the human race has only existed for a minute period of time. For any noticeable genetic variation to take place, there would have to be a much larger span of time over which the human genome would develop consistent mutation. Furthermore, genetic variation does exist in the forms of various diseases and unique characteristics. '''''<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]

# Lack of genetic diversity among the ''Homo sapiens'' species.  Were evolution and the old earth true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance.<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]

<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

<small>see picture source and license [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ara_macao_-on_a_small_bicycle-8.jpg here]</small>]]  

<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. '''''All the species on earth share a common environment, and even given the amount of biome variety that exists, animals generally have to adapt to fulfill certain biological needs. Given the VAST amount of species that exist on earth, it comes as no surprise that many of these species would adapt a biological feature that is best suited to function well in a given environment. If anything, this claim only supports the natural selection theory.'''''<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/homology.asp</ref>

# 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>

# ''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 claim completely ignores the fundamentals of the natural selection theory. First of all, any given gene may have benefits or may have lethal side effects. This does not mean that EVERY good gene has lethal side effects attached. For all of these genes that would ultimately lead to the death of the animal, the gene would simply cease to be prevalent due to the fact that these animals would die out, leaving the "improved" animals--which essentially describes the idea of "survival of the fittest".'''''<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/beneficial-mutations-in-bacteria</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.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/beneficial-mutations-in-bacteria</ref>

# The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably "grown" from the scales of dinosaurs '''''You've got to be kidding me.'''''<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. '''''There may have been many predecessors to the species that exist today that died out without contributing to the gene pool due to the fact that they could not reproduce. However, the fact that these new gene sets have gradually become integrated into the natural world has been carried out through interspecies breeding and the presence of other animals that carry the gene. The assumption that certain distinct species (such as dogs, cats, etc.) spontaneously "evolved" is ridiculous--the traits we associate with the species have gradually been combined through reproduction over time to define the species for what it is.''''' <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. '''''There are also no records of anyone witnessing the creation of earth.'''''

# 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.

# 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. '''''This statement ignores the fact that these "bad traits" have arisen due to the development of an extremely sophisticated mind that is used to manipulate our surroundings to our advantage. The ultimate motive, moral or not, of people who lie or steal, is for their personal gain, and analyzing this trait from a biological stance, once again this is just "survival of the fittest." In addition, many of these people who otherwise would have died out due to evolution, did not due to the general human nature--we do not live in a state of natural chaos that the prehistoric species did. Instead, we live in a world dominated by man, where criminal justice systems exist and morals and preservation of human rights (compared to a free pure state) override the elimination of "unfavorable genes".'''''

# 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.  

# Evolution is internally inconsistent.  It posits that all life must continuously improve, but on the other hand, it holds that some creatures, like the horseshoe crab, the alligator, the shark, and the [[coelacanth]],<ref>http://www.dinofish.com/</ref> have remained virtually unchanged for improbably long time periods. '''''They have--they have turned into other species that exist today! Just because one species may have a biological advantage over another, it does not mean that the latter will completely die out as a species. Is there any reason that horseshoe crabs, alligators, sharks, or coelacanths NEED to improve? In our world, these species exist and live without excessive interference and survive through the years--so why would they not continue to exist, as long as they continue to live and reproduce?'''''

# Evolution is internally inconsistent.  It posits that all life must continuously improve, but on the other hand, it holds that some creatures, like the horseshoe crab, the alligator, the shark, and the [[coelacanth]],<ref>http://www.dinofish.com/</ref> have remained virtually unchanged for improbably long time periods.

# According to evolutionary theory, cavemen with no scientific or genetic knowledge domesticated the wolf (''canis lupus'') into a different species - the dog (''canis familiaris''). However, many experts on dog genetics have created hundreds of different dog breeds over the years through selective mating, but they are all the same species. If the cavemen could create new species seemingly by accident, it stands to reason that experts could do so with intentional effort. But since this has not been done, the wolf-dog example seems false. '''''What?'''''

# According to evolutionary theory, cavemen with no scientific or genetic knowledge domesticated the wolf (''canis lupus'') into a different species - the dog (''canis familiaris''). However, many experts on dog genetics have created hundreds of different dog breeds over the years through selective mating, but they are all the same species. If the cavemen could create new species seemingly by accident, it stands to reason that experts could do so with intentional effort. But since this has not been done, the wolf-dog example seems false.

===Lack of mechanism===

===Lack of mechanism===