Counterexamples to Evolution - Revision history

Aschlafly: further copy-edit improvements

2026-09-17T01:26:40Z

further copy-edit improvements

RoadtoEmmaus2: Remove unwanted space before period preceding reference

2026-09-16T02:56:44Z

Remove unwanted space before period preceding reference

Show changes

RoadtoEmmaus2: Copy-edit improvements

2026-09-15T23:31:52Z

Copy-edit improvements

Show changes

Aschlafly: improve intro

2025-11-06T03:12:28Z

improve intro

Aschlafly: Jesus mentioned the Great Flood at Luke 17:27.

2025-08-19T23:30:37Z

Jesus mentioned the Great Flood at Luke 17:27.

Aschlafly: copy-edit improvements

2024-08-10T18:54:48Z

copy-edit improvements

Show changes

Ethan Parmet: /* Logical examples */ argument from the abcc11 gene

2023-11-21T22:40:09Z

Logical examples: argument from the abcc11 gene

Ethan Parmet: converted bare urls

2023-11-09T01:55:35Z

converted bare urls

Conservative: /* See also */

2023-09-23T18:24:26Z

Ethan Parmet: /* Lack of mechanism */ found a source on liberal wikipedia on the zw sex-determination system page that admits that they could not have shared a common origin with xy chromosomes (see: Ellegren, citation 3)

2023-05-17T16:23:32Z

Lack of mechanism: found a source on liberal wikipedia on the zw sex-determination system page that admits that they could not have shared a common origin with xy chromosomes (see: Ellegren, citation 3)

@@ Line 23: / Line 23: @@
 [[Image:Feather image.jpg|thumb|300px|right|[[Harvard]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote: "It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random [[mutation]]s."<ref>[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes9.html Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296]</ref>]]
 # The extraordinary [[animal migration|migration]] patterns of butterflies and birds cannot be explained through naturalistic development, and lack any plausible materialistic explanation.<ref>[[Animal migration]]</ref>
-# Evolutionists falsely asserted for centuries that [[corn]] evolved from teosinte, when in fact they have many fundamentally irreconcilable differences ;<ref>https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1820997116</ref> There is no plausible evolutionary path of development for [[corn]].
+# Evolutionists falsely asserted for centuries that [[corn]] evolved from teosinte, when in fact they have many fundamentally irreconcilable differences;<ref>https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1820997116</ref> there is no plausible evolutionary path of development for [[corn]].
 # Evolution does not account for the immense amount of [[information]] in the genome. While there are various definitions of information, and many types have been observed to occur naturally, DNA contains information that is processed to lead to a result predetermined by the content of that information. Strictly speaking, it is inaccurate to refer to DNA as a "code" or "language," as many scientists are prone to doing. In fact, DNA is more like a template, which produces messenger RNA (mRNA), a new template with more appropriate bases for protein production. The mRNA essentially acts as a scaffold to which the appropriate amino acids attach to form a protein molecule. Rather than being a language containing words that each has a meaning, DNA is more like a jig or framework that allows a specific molecule of mRNA, and subsequently a specific protein sequence, to be assembled on it. In effect, the information is the sequence of chemical reactions which that length of DNA will catalyze. Given the huge number of useless protein molecules which could be formed and the complexity of even a simple protein such as hemoglobin, this sequence could not have evolved by natural selection as the odds against the initial organism having a functional protein are too great.
 # The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably "grown" from the scales of reptiles or any other known structure.<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> [[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]]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 [[File:Question-Evolution-Campaign.jpg|thumbnail|250px|right|The [[Question evolution! campaign]] by [[Creation Ministries International]] is a worldwide campaign that poses 15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer.<ref>[https://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign] by [[Creation Ministries International]]</ref> The 15 questions posed to evolutionists can be found [https://creation.com/15-questions HERE] ]]
-The [[theory of evolution]] does not permit the existence of any counterexamples.  '''If any one of the 55 counterexamples listed below is correct, then the theory of evolution fails'''. Moreover, even if there is merely a 10% 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 '''''probability that the theory of evolution is false is more than 99%'''''.
+The [[theory of evolution]] cannot allow any counterexamples.  '''If any one of the 55 counterexamples listed below is correct, then the theory of evolution fails'''. Moreover, even if there is merely a 10% 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 '''''probability that the theory of evolution is false is more than 99%'''''.
 ==Counterexamples==
 ===Logical examples===

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 # The [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]] establishes that everything in the world becomes more disordered over time, in the absence of intelligent intervention.  The theory of evolution falsely claims that some systems can become more ordered over time, like an impossible [[perpetual motion machine]]. See: [[Creation Ministries International on the second law of thermodynamics|Evolution and the second law of thermodynamics]] and [[Genetic entropy]]
 # Royal Truman and Peter Borger wrote concerning optimization and the genetic code: "The distribution of ‘code quality’ would roughly follow a Gaussian distribution, based on the [[law of large numbers]]. This means that as coding conventions are improved, it would be ever more difficult for natural selection to generate yet better codes."<ref>[https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_3/j21_3_84-92.pdf Genetic code optimisation: Part 2] by Royal Truman and Peter Borger</ref>
-# More than 70% of Earth is covered with water, devastating flooding is frequent, and a massive ancient flood is historically recorded by every culture.  Limestone and fossils exist at the highest peaks of altitude.  Yet mammals cannot survive large floods.  It is impossible to increase the period of time to permit evolution without also increasing the likelihood of extinction of mammals due to large flooding.
+# More than 70% of Earth is covered with water, devastating flooding is frequent, and a massive ancient flood is historically recorded by every culture.  Limestone and fossils exist at the highest peaks of altitude.  Yet mammals cannot survive large floods.  It is impossible to increase the period of time to permit evolution without also increasing the likelihood of extinction of mammals due to large flooding. [[Jesus]] mentioned the [[Great Flood]] at [[Luke, Chapter 17#27|Luke 17:27]].
 # Evolution cannot explain the lack of genetic diversity among the Homo sapiens species. If evolution and the Old Earth theory were true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2008-02-15 |title=Descent of Man Theory: Disproved by Molecular Biology |url=http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7 |url-status=deviated |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191106001429/http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7 |archive-date=2019-11-06 |access-date=2023-11-09 |website=godandscience.org}}</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). 80% of all human diversity is found on the African continent, which accords with a human population growing from a small group in the post-Flood Middle East.[[File:Ara macao -on a small bicycle-8.jpg|thumbnail|300px|right|[[Parrot]] feathers are a problem for evolutionists.  For more information, please see [https://creation.com/parrot-fashion parrot feathers].]]
 # Parsimonious repetition of design elements throughout Creation, e.g. the eye's appearance in remarkably different species.  For such complex structures to [[convergent evolution|repeatedly arise via evolution]] is [[statistical impossibility|impossible]], as evolution is an inherently random and historically contingent process.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Does Homology Provide Evidence of Evolutionary Naturalism? |url=https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/evidence/does-homology-provide-evidence-of-evolutionary-naturalism/ |access-date=2023-11-09 |website=Answers in Genesis |language=en}}</ref>

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 # The Theory of Evolution dictates that all organisms descended from single-celled bacteria. Considering that bacteria are, and always have been, the most successful group of organisms, covering all areas of the globe in some of the most extreme environments, why would it have been advantageous to evolve into organisms that are so much more limited to the environments they can inhabit? Surely, staying as bacteria would be far more advantageous, due to their tolerance of extreme conditions, quick reproduction time, etc.
 # Evolution cannot explain why tapeworms exist since parasitism is worse than mutual cooperation. This is because parasitism would mean they will have to destroy their host and have less opportunity to evolve while those that cooperate with other organism will evolve in much faster speed and overtake their cousins.
 ===Lack of mechanism===

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 # Royal Truman and Peter Borger wrote concerning optimization and the genetic code: "The distribution of ‘code quality’ would roughly follow a Gaussian distribution, based on the [[law of large numbers]]. This means that as coding conventions are improved, it would be ever more difficult for natural selection to generate yet better codes."<ref>[https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_3/j21_3_84-92.pdf Genetic code optimisation: Part 2] by Royal Truman and Peter Borger</ref>
 # More than 70% of Earth is covered with water, devastating flooding is frequent, and a massive ancient flood is historically recorded by every culture.  Limestone and fossils exist at the highest peaks of altitude.  Yet mammals cannot survive large floods.  It is impossible to increase the period of time to permit evolution without also increasing the likelihood of extinction of mammals due to large flooding.
-# Evolution cannot explain the 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). 80% of all human diversity is found on the African continent, which accords with a human population growing from a small group in the post-Flood Middle East.[[File:Ara macao -on a small bicycle-8.jpg|thumbnail|300px|right|[[Parrot]] feathers are a problem for evolutionists.  For more information, please see [https://creation.com/parrot-fashion parrot feathers].]]
+# Evolution cannot explain the 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>{{Cite web |date=2008-02-15 |title=Descent of Man Theory: Disproved by Molecular Biology |url=http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7 |url-status=deviated |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191106001429/http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7 |archive-date=2019-11-06 |access-date=2023-11-09 |website=godandscience.org}}</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). 80% of all human diversity is found on the African continent, which accords with a human population growing from a small group in the post-Flood Middle East.[[File:Ara macao -on a small bicycle-8.jpg|thumbnail|300px|right|[[Parrot]] feathers are a problem for evolutionists.  For more information, please see [https://creation.com/parrot-fashion parrot feathers].]]
-# 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.  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>{{Cite web |title=Does Homology Provide Evidence of Evolutionary Naturalism? |url=https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/evidence/does-homology-provide-evidence-of-evolutionary-naturalism/ |access-date=2023-11-09 |website=Answers in Genesis |language=en}}</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>
+# ''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>{{Cite web |title=A Creationist Perspective of Beneficial Mutations in Bacteria |url=https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/mutations/a-creationist-perspective-of-beneficial-mutations-in-bacteria/ |access-date=2023-11-09 |website=Answers in Genesis |language=en}}</ref>
-# 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>
+# The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably "grown" from the scales of reptiles<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Martin |first=Larry D. |last2=Czerkas |first2=Stephan A. |date=2000-08 |title=The Fossil Record of Feather Evolution in the Mesozoic |url=https://academic.oup.com/icb/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/icb/40.4.687 |journal=American Zoologist |language=en |volume=40 |issue=4 |pages=687–694 |doi=10.1093/icb/40.4.687 |issn=0003-1569}}</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>https://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>{{Cite web |date=2009-03-04 |title=Atheists strategize against book on God |url=https://www.wnd.com/2009/03/90743/ |access-date=2023-11-09 |website=WND |language=en-US}}</ref>
 # There are no historical records of anyone directly observing one major kind of animal evolving into another, which would certainly be something worth writing about. Also, "Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?"<ref>[https://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists]</ref>
 # 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.

@@ Line 100: / Line 100: @@
 *[[Logic of possibility]]
 *[[Postmodern science]]
 == External links ==

@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 # 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.
 # 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>
-# Evolution cannot explain the many complex sex-determining systems. For example, in most mammals, females have two identical sex chromosomes (XX in this case) whereas males two different ones (XY.) However in birds, reptiles, many insects, and other organisms, the situation is reversed to where the male has two identical sex chromosomes and the female has two different ones; for example male birds have a ZZ chromosome pair and females ZW. No evolutionist has proposed a mechanism by which mammals could have a different sex chromosome system from the reptile ancestors they allegedly share with birds.
+# Evolution cannot explain the many complex sex-determining systems. For example, in most mammals, females have two identical sex chromosomes (XX in this case) whereas males two different ones (XY.) However in birds, reptiles, many insects, and other organisms, the situation is reversed to where the male has two identical sex chromosomes and the female has two different ones; for example male birds have a ZZ chromosome pair and females ZW. No evolutionist has proposed a mechanism by which mammals could have a different sex chromosome system from the reptile ancestors they allegedly share with birds. In fact, many evolutionists admit that the XY and ZW chromosomal systems could not have shared a common origin.<ref>Ellegren, Hans (2011-03-01). "Sex-chromosome evolution: recent progress and the influence of male and female heterogamety". Nature Reviews Genetics. 12 (3): 157–166. doi:10.1038/nrg2948. ISSN 1471-0056. PMID 21301475. S2CID 21098648</ref>
 # As alluded to above, evolution requires that random mutations cause one [[kind]] to change into another, but this has never been observed.
 # 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>