Changes

[[File:Darwin_monkey_cartoon.jpg|thumb|180px|Caricature of [[Charles Darwin]] ]]

[[File:Darwin_monkey_cartoon.jpg|thumb|180px|Caricature of [[Charles Darwin]] ]]

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, even 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 76 counterexamples are ''all'' incorrect and that evolution is true is only 2%.

A number of objections to the theory of evolution have been proposed. These can be split into a number of categories. Many of them are worthy of scientific investigation, but a number are based on misunderstandings or lack of knowledge of what evolutionary theory actually says, and this has been noted where appropriate.

==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.

# 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. However this assumes that the rate of extinction remains constant, whereas scientists claim that it varies considerably.

# 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>[[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.  This is often seen as a problem for evolutionists, but scientists claim that the human population arose relatively recently from a small population so large diversity would not be expected according to their theory.[[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.<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.  However there are a variety of quite different types of eye found in nature, with their only universal feature being the ability to detect light and form images. Evolutionary theory actually claims that this sort of convergent evolution WILL happen.

# ''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>

# ''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> This is simply wrong.

# 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> This claim is based on a fundamental lack of understanding of what evolutionists claim, and scientists see it as an easy target when attacking creationists.

# 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 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. In fact scientists have compiled lists of new species which have been observed.

# 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. However evolutionary theory explains benefits to individuals or even genes, not populations, and lying or other sinful behaviours can benefit the individual who performs them.

# 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.

# 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. Again this is not anything like what evolutionists actually say, and allows them to portray creationists as ignorant. It should not be used.

# 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.

# 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.

# The bacterial flagellum has been proven to be useless when missing a single part of the mechanism. It stands to reason that this must have been created fully formed, and cannot have evolved from a simpler form. The term for this phenomenon is [[irreducible complexity]], and it can be seen in countless biological features.

# The bacterial flagellum has been proven to be useless when missing a single part of the mechanism. However when missing 42 parts of its mechanism it forms a fully functional secretory system. The Irreducible Complexity argument is very promising but so far no example has been conclusively proven and some have unfortunately been discredited, such as the blood clotting cascade and immune system.

===Lack of mechanism===

===Lack of mechanism===

# 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>

# 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.

# 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. This is a bizarre argument and should be avoided.

# 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>[[File:Autumn.jpg|292px|right|thumbnail|The beauty of [[God]]'s [[creation]], such as [[autumn]] foliage, cannot adequately be explained through the evolutionary [[paradigm]]. See: [[Argument from beauty]]

# 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>[[File:Autumn.jpg|292px|right|thumbnail|The beauty of [[God]]'s [[creation]], such as [[autumn]] foliage, cannot adequately be explained through the evolutionary [[paradigm]]. See: [[Argument from beauty]]

<br />

<br />