Difference between revisions of "Counterexamples to Evolution"

Revision as of 16:37, November 3, 2009

A scientific or logical theory cannot permit any counterexamples. In order to be true, the 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.

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

• "Social insects" such as bees, ants, and termites, which have extremely ornate caste systems. Where an insect fits is determined by its diet when young. Evolution requires that both the genetics for the various castes, the genetics for caste determination, and the genetics for behavior allowing caste determination all appeared simultaneously. Akin to the concept of irreducible complexity, but on a higher (social) order, this is impossible given random chance.
• evolution cannot explain artistic beauty, such as the brilliant fall 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
• No transitional forms appear for horses, instead different horse like animals appear in the fossil record distinct^[1]
• the immune system is irreducibly complex, as without one which is thoroughly developed, an organism would not be able to resist any infection^[2][3]
• Jellyfish in Hawaii swarm to the beaches roughly 9 to 10 days after each full moon, for no apparent evolutionary reason^[4]
• the fact that cicadas appear like clockwork every 13 years for some species, and every 17 years for others^[5]
• the extraordinary migration patterns of butterflies and birds, which lack any plausible materialistic explanation^[6]
• the extraordinarily long neck of the giraffe. It serves no function (the theory that giraffes use the long neck to eat from tree trunks was never true). The presence of valves in the neck (which are necessary because of its great length) raises a question of how one could have arisen without the other being there first (see the irreducible complexity argument).^[7]
• the enormous gaps and lack of intermediate species in the fossil record.
• 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 development of feathers, which could not have conceivably "grown" from the scales of dinosaurs^[8][9]
• Pterosaurs; a scientist recently stated that they could not have flown, but why then did they evolve wings?^[10]
• The development of wings, as intermediary wing stubs would have no use, and be a competitive disadvantage.
• The flagellum a multi-part cellular motor which fails to function if a single part is removed is the classic example of irreducible complexity and cannot arise according to the theory of evolution.^[11]
• Variation in chromosome count (ploidy) is impossible in evolution. One member of a species with 2 sets of chromosomes cannot mate with a member with 4. Thus, for the chromosome count of a species to change (and thus account for the variety of counts in nature) a vast portion of a species would have to evolve a new chromosome set simultaneously.
• 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.^[12]
• Many bats which live in caves employs a type of sonar in order to navigate and find prey. Evolutionists propose that the bat evolved from a squirrel-like animal, but a squirrel would have no use for a sonar system. The bats can't fly without sonar, and an animal that can't fly doesn't need it. Therefore, bats must have been created with fully functioning sonar and flight.
• No clear transition from unicellular to multicellular organisms.
• 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.^[13]
• 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.”^[14] Not surprisingly, atheist evolutionists have done their utmost to deny animal altruism (See especially Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene, which denies altruism without providing any evidence to back up his enormous claim)
• Humans exhibit behaviors such as performing science, creating art and music, 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.
• 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.
• Ants and other social insects, for at least two reasons: First, their complex social structure is evidence of intelligent design; second, since the overwhelming majority of individuals are workers and do not reproduce, they cannot perpetuate their genetic material, as evolution requires.
• Mammalian fur and body hair. There is no known evolutionary pathway for the development of fur, and no fossil evidence of hair evolving from scales, even though it survives very well.^[15]
• Lack of any vestigial organs in the human body. While evolutionists used to claim dozens or even hundreds of human traits and organs were vestigial, useless items disused through evolution, we now know what functions they all have, including the appendix (the classic example). ^[16]
• Lack of any demonstrable vestigial parts of the human genome. While evolutionists often claim that regions of the genome are "junk DNA" and would not have been placed there by a designer, none have actually shown this to be true, and much so-called "junk DNA" has been shown to be useful.^[17]
• While evolutionists argue that there are examples of "bad design" in the bodies of many organisms, such as "flaws" in the human spine and sinus system, evolutionists fail to realize that, by their own theory, natural selection should have removed these things! The simpler explanation, that these represent degeneration from an original, created perfect form, is the superior one.
• Evolution requires that random mutations can cause one kind to change into another, but this has never been observed.
• The organ and brain development required for retinal imagery require a base level of complexity, making a primitive form useless and impossible under evolution.^[18]
• Trematode parasites, like many other kinds, lack a plausible evolutionary phylogeny, though they can easily be explained by a teleological design.^[19]
• We have the perfect number of teeth to fit in our mouths. While creationism perfectly accounts for that result, evolutionism predicts a contrary result: As our faces 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 example, we would expect to see some sort of set of third molars, which grow in around puberty in most people, and in many cases require removal by a dentist.
• 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. ^[20]
• 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.
• Human fertility is rapidly declining, disproving evolutionary improvement in humans and also suggesting a brief timeline for human existence.
• The fact that new discoveries, such as Raptorex, routinely call into question key dogmas of evolutionism and require the "immutable" laws of evolution to be reassessed. By contrast, creationism has prevailed in the face of scientific discoveries for six thousand years.
• 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.^[21]
• Too many deleterious mutations. Each generation of humans has far more negative mutations than the posited natural selection can remove. Evolution is thus impossible as species would become unviable long before they could diverge.^[22]
• Animals flee to high ground before a deadly tsunami hits their shoreline, defying any plausible materialistic explanation.^[23]

Logical Conclusion

As scientific theories require that their laws be immutable, the existence of merely one counterexample disproves the truth of the rule. Thus, if evolution fails to account for any one of these items (or countless others), it must be discarded.

References

1. ↑ Ray comfort, foreward to the 150th anniversary edition of On the Origin of Species
2. ↑ Behe, Michael J. 1996. Darwin's Black Box, New York: The Free Press, pp. 117-139.
3. ↑ [1]
4. ↑ http://www.aloha.com/~lifeguards/jelyfish.html
5. ↑ http://inside.msj.edu/academics/faculty/kritskg/cicada/faq.html
6. ↑ migration
7. ↑ [2]
8. ↑ http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/40/4/687.pdf
9. ↑ [3]
10. ↑ http://www.physorg.com/news142086647.html
11. ↑ [4]
12. ↑ [5]
13. ↑ Sarfati, Jonathan, The Prostate Gland–is it ‘badly designed’?, 1st August 2008 (Creation Ministries International)
14. ↑ In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood [6]
15. ↑ http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/40/40_4/Bergman.htm
16. ↑ Ken Ham and Carl Wieland, Your Appendix: It's There for a Reason. (1997)
17. ↑ http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/junkdna.html
18. ↑ http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_1/retinal_imagery.htm
19. ↑ http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/trematodes.html
20. ↑ http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=90743
21. ↑ http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7
22. ↑ http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7
23. ↑ http://www.deseretnews.com/article/600105348/Utah-scientific-Did-animals-sense--and-flee--the-tsunamis-in-S-Asia.html

See also

• Counterexamples to an Old Earth