Changes

==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.

 

# 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.

# 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> Some scientists have stated that a troop of 55 chimpanzees contains more genetic diversity than the entire human race; this would support the idea that all chimps are descended from a relatively large initial population while all humans are descended from a much smaller initial population (two people, perhaps).<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]

# It was previously thought that the annual rate of extinction of species far exceeds any plausible rate of generation of species, however, recent studies have shown that relative large changes in species can happen very quickly, for example the Sticklebacks in Lake Loberg in Alaska[1] and the developement of cecal valves in Italian wall lizards, giving them the ability to better digest plant matter[2]. This brings us to a problem. We can see Micro-Evolution occurring on small time scales, so, on larger time scales, does that mean that Macro-Evolution Couldn't occur?

# Ring Species, such as the lungless Salamander (Ensatina Eshsholtzi) found in Western North America live in populations in a ring, where neighboring populations can breed with each other, but the two populations at the far ends of the ring (physically living close to one another) look very different, cannot interbreed and are clearly regarded as different species. How then are we to reconcile this problem with the Standard Creationism that the bible teaches us? Each population is just, very slightly different to the preceding one, so, again where is the line to be drawn (or even, crossed) between Micro and Macro-Evolution? 3 One could say that 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; but one plausible evolutionary explanation is that as we evolved (if we evolved) within such an environment, then such things would be pleasing to us as they indicated a healthy environment.

# Lack of genetic diversity among the Homo sapiens species is apparent. Compared to Chimapanzees, we are genetically very similar and lack their diversity. Does this mean that God created Many Chimapanzees but only Adam and Eve? There is no mention in Genesis of how many Chimpanzees God created. Although we humans lack genetic diversisty, we are still far more diverse (as is virtually any creature) compared to the Cheetah, which went through a population bottleneck where it is suggested that only 7 individuals survived a few thousand years ago [3]. The Cheetah is so lacking in diversity that a rather unpleasant experiment can be carried out. A section of skin can be cut from Any Cheetah and sewn onto any other Cheetah and it Won't be rejected. This doesn't work with virtually any other animal.see picture source and license here]]  

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

# It has been suggested that there is Parsimonious repetition of design elements throughout Creation, e.g. the eye's appearance in remarkably different species. For such complex structures to arise has been thought of as a statistical_impossibility, as evolution is supposed to be inherently random, but, of course, it wouldn't be entirely random, because if something didn't work, then it wouldn't, necessarily be passed on and if something conferred a distinct advantage, then it certainly would. Convergent Evolution would mean that the tool best adapted to a particular task would crop up again and again and, indeed, different versions of the eye, do crop up again and again, at various stages of complexity, from the very simple, light sensitive cells, through the "pin-hole camera" eye of the Nautilus, through to very complex eyes like those of an Octopus or bird of prey. Scientists have evidence that the eye has evolved, independently, at least 40 times.

# 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, could render the "improvement" of animals by random mutation difficult, as any mutation with a potentially beneficial effect might be coupled with one or more other potentially lethal effects.[4], however, unexpected side effects can be even more beneficial, not necessarily immediately, for example, the way that different versions of the Bombardier Beetle appear to have "evolved".

# ''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, it was thought, 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>, this was thought to be quite a good one, although feathers are scales. However, the discovery of non avian therapod dinosaurs with rudimentary feathers means that such a view is placed in jeopardy. The developmental theory suggests that feathers evolved through a series of evolutionary novelties

# 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>

# 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.

# The argument has been made that 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. [7], this, of course, ignores the possibility that sexual reproduction developed long before these animals 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.  

# It was previously thought that there were no historical records of anyone directly observing one species evolving into another, as time progresses, more and more apparent Speciation Events are being recorded.  

# 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. So where did they come from? We can observe liars in the animal kingdom and lying can benefit the individual, providing that no one finds out about it long enough for them to breed. Psychopaths and murderers are harder to explain, but, as Humanity has had a brutal and bloody past, this may go some way to explaining it. During wars, people with the no moral limits can help a society gain an advantage over another society, the problem comes when there is a predominance of people with these kind of personality traits.

# 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.