Changes

A scientific or logical theory 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''''' things in terms of a purely mechanistic view.  

A scientific or logical theory cannot permit any counterexamples.  In order to be true, the [[theory of evolution|theory of evolution by natural selection acting upon random mutasion]] must be able to explain the origins of '''''all''''' things in terms of a purely mechanistic view.  

The following are counterexamples to the theory of evolution.  If just one of these counterexamples is correct, then the theory of evolution fails.

The following are counterexamples to the theory of evolution.  If just one of these counterexamples is correct, then the theory of evolution fails.

* 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

* evolution cannot explain artistic booty, 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

* the remarkable whale, which is a mammal, has no plausible evolutionary ancestor

* the remarkable whale, which is a mammal, has no plausible evolutionary ancestor

* No transitional forms appear for horses, instead different horse like animals appear in the fossil record distinct<ref>Ray comfort, foreward to the 150th anniversary edition of On the Origin of Species</ref>

* No transitional forms appear for horses, instead different horse like animals appear in the fossil record distinct<ref>Ray comfort, foreward to the 150th anniversary edition of On the Origin of Species</ref>

* the [[immune system]] is irreducibly complex, as without one which is thoroughly developed, an organism would not be able to resist any infection<ref>Behe, Michael J. 1996. ''Darwin's Black Box'', New York: The Free Press, pp. 117-139.</ref><ref>[http://biology.creighton.edu/courses/BIO432/Evolution%2005.htm]</ref>

* the [[immune system]] is irreducibly complex, as without one which is thoroughly developed, an organism would not be able to resist any infection<ref>Behe, Michael J. 1996. ''Darwin's Black Box'', New York: The Free Press, pp. 117-139.</ref><ref>[http://biology.creighton.edu/courses/BIO432/Evolution%2005.htm]</ref>

* [[Jellyfish]] in [[Hawaii]] swarm to the beaches roughly 9 to 10 days after each full [[moon]], for no apparent evolutionary reason<ref>http://www.aloha.com/~lifeguards/jelyfish.html</ref>

* [[Jellyfish]] in [[Hawaii]] swarm to the beaches roughly 9 to 10 days after each full [[moon]], for no apparent evolutionary reason<ref>http://www.aloha.com/~lifeguards/jelyfish.html</ref>

* The [[human]] [[prostate]] surrounds the [[urethra]] and in doing so provides many benefits.  Evolutionists consider the structure to be poor design, which should mean that natural selection would have eliminated that design.<ref>Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5757 The Prostate Gland–is it ‘badly designed’?], 1st August 2008 (Creation Ministries International)</ref>

* The [[human]] [[prostate]] surrounds the [[urethra]] and in doing so provides many benefits.  Evolutionists consider the structure to be poor design, which should mean that natural selection would have eliminated that design.<ref>Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5757 The Prostate Gland–is it ‘badly designed’?], 1st August 2008 (Creation Ministries International)</ref>

* Consciousness - No animal displays self-awareness (such as clothing), morality, tool-making, or self-sacrifice to the same extent that man does.  It is unclear how a random mutation could have arisen which accounts for humanity's significantly higher cognitive ability.

* Consciousness - No animal displays self-awareness (such as clothing), morality, tool-making, or self-sacrifice to the same extent that man does.  It is unclear how a random mutation could have arisen which accounts for humanity's significantly higher cognitive ability.

* 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>

* Inability to account for widely observed altrueism 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>

* 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.

* 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.

* No other animal exhibits [[religion]]. A far better explanation than random mutations is that humans were given the capacity to be religious by a loving God who wants a relationship with His creations.

* No other animal exhibits [[religion]]. A far better explanation than random mutations is that humans were given the capacity to be religious by a loving God who wants a relationship with His creations.

* 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>

* 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>

* We have the perfect number of [[teeth]] to fit in our [[mouth]]s.  While creationism perfectly accounts for that result, evolutionism predicts a contrary result: As our [[face]]s evolved from chimpanzee-like faces to human faces, the shortening of the muzzle would have caused the teeth to become overcrowded in the mouth.

* We have the perfect number of [[teeth]] to fit in our [[mouth]]s.  While creationism perfectly accounts for that result, evolutionism predicts a contrary result: As our [[face]]s evolved from chimpanzee-like faces to human faces, the shortening of the muzzle would have caused the teeth to become overcrowded in the mouth.

* 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, ellephant, 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>

* In addition, evolution cannot explain the many complex sex-determining systems. For example, in most mammals, females have two X chromosomes whereas males have an X and Y chromosome, but in birds, many insects, and other organisms, the situation is reversed. In flies, sex is determined the ratio of non-sex chromosomes to X chromosomes (so that males have only one X whereas females have two). It is impossible for evolution to create these new sex-determining systems ''ex nihilo''.

* In addition, evolution cannot explain the many complex sex-determining systems. For example, in most mammals, females have two X chromosomes whereas males have an X and Y chromosome, but in birds, many insects, and other organisms, the situation is reversed. In flies, sex is determined the ratio of non-sex chromosomes to X chromosomes (so that males have only one X whereas females have two). It is impossible for evolution to create these new sex-determining systems ''ex nihilo''.

* A lack of any evolution from prehistoric forms has been demonstrated for many species.

* A lack of any evolution from prehistoric forms has been demonstrated for many species.