Counterexamples to Evolution

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Conservative (Talk | contribs) at 15:04, 14 June 2010. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search
Caricature of Charles Darwin. To date, no fossils of H. darwinicus orangutanishicus have been found.

A scientific theory proven by the logical principal of deduction 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 living things in terms of a purely naturalistic view. If any of the counterexamples listed below is correct, then the theory of evolution fails. Moreover, if there is merely a 5% chance that each of these examples is correct, then the odds that these are all incorrect and that evolution is true is infinitesimally small (~8.53% with 48 examples).

Counterexamples

Logical examples

  1. 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 more unlikely.
  2. 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.[1]
  3. Parsimonious repetition of design elements throughout creation, e.g. the eye's appearance in remarkably different species. For such complex structures to arise repeatedly via evolution is impossible, as evolution is an inherently random and historically contingent process.[2]
  4. 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.[3]
  5. The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably "grown" from the scales of dinosaurs[4][5]
  6. 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. [6]

Lack of mechanism

  1. Animals flee to high ground before a deadly tsunami hits their shoreline, defying any plausible materialistic explanation.[7]
  2. Mutations cause a loss of information, rendering it mathematically impossible for mutations to advance the complexity of life. Similarly, entropy (disorder) increases over time, making it impossible for order to increase on its own.
  3. "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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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
  6. Evolution cannot explain how beauty is in the eye of the beholder, if evolution said that beauty were useful then we would all expect to see the same things as beautiful.
  7. the fact that cicadas appear like clockwork every 13 years for some species, and every 17 years for others[8]
  8. the extraordinary migration patterns of butterflies and birds, which lack any plausible materialistic explanation[9]
  9. 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.
  10. 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
  11. 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.[10]
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. Trematode parasites, like many other kinds, lack a plausible evolutionary phylogeny, though they can easily be explained by a teleological design.[11]
  15. 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.
  16. Several species of fish in the Arctic ocean have chemicals in their blood that essentially act as anti-freeze. Evolution requires gradual change, leaving no plausible explanation as to how the fish survived before developing this trait.

Maladaptation

  1. Jellyfish in Hawaii swarm to the beaches roughly 9 to 10 days after each full moon, for no apparent evolutionary reason[12]
  2. 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.
  3. 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]
  4. 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)
  5. 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 nonviable long before they could diverge.[15]

Wrong prediction

  1. "the loss and addition of large DNA sequence blocks are present in humans and gorillas, but not in chimps" even though "the gorilla is lower on the primate tree than the chimp and supposedly more distant to humans. How could these large blocks of DNA--from an evolutionary perspective--appear first in gorillas, disappear in chimps, and then reappear in humans?"[16]
  2. 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). [17]
  3. 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.[18]
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. Human fertility is rapidly declining, disproving evolutionary improvement in humans and also suggesting a brief timeline for human existence.

Missing fossils

  1. the remarkable whale, which is a mammal, has no plausible evolutionary ancestor
  2. No transitional forms appear for horses, instead different horse like animals appear in the fossil record distinct[19]
  3. the enormous gaps and lack of intermediate species in the fossil record.
  4. No clear transition from unicellular to multicellular organisms.
  5. 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.[20]
  6. A lack of any evolution from prehistoric forms has been demonstrated for many species.

Paradoxical fossils

  1. 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.

Irreducible Complexity

  1. the immune system is irreducibly complex, as without one which is thoroughly developed, an organism would not be able to resist any infection[21][22]
  2. 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).[23]
  3. The development of wings, as intermediary wing stubs would have no use, and be a competitive disadvantage.
  4. 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.[24]
  5. Many bats which live in caves employ 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.
  6. The organ and brain development required for retinal imagery require a base level of complexity, making a primitive form useless and impossible under evolution.[25]

Uncategorized

  1. Pterosaurs; a scientist recently stated that they could not have flown, but why then did they evolve wings?[26]
  2. 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.
  3. Evolution requires that random mutations can cause one kind to change into another, but this has never been observed.
  4. 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."[27]

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.

See also

External Links

References

  1. http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7
  2. http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/homology.asp
  3. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/beneficial-mutations-in-bacteria
  4. http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/40/4/687.pdf
  5. [1]
  6. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=90743
  7. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/600105348/Utah-scientific-Did-animals-sense--and-flee--the-tsunamis-in-S-Asia.html
  8. http://inside.msj.edu/academics/faculty/kritskg/cicada/faq.html
  9. migration
  10. [2]
  11. http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/trematodes.html
  12. http://www.aloha.com/~lifeguards/jelyfish.html
  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 [3]
  15. http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7
  16. http://www.icr.org/article/4624/
  17. Ken Ham and Carl Wieland, Your Appendix: It's There for a Reason. (1997)
  18. http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/junkdna.html
  19. Ray comfort, forward to the 150th anniversary edition of On the Origin of Species
  20. http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/40/40_4/Bergman.htm
  21. Behe, Michael J. 1996. Darwin's Black Box, New York: The Free Press, pp. 117-139.
  22. [4]
  23. [5]
  24. [6]
  25. http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_1/retinal_imagery.htm
  26. http://www.physorg.com/news142086647.html
  27. [7] 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."