ver the brief history of the religion of evolution, there have been many attempts to prove the beliefs are scientific, by citing generally unconvincing examples.  This page takes a look at a few of the popular ones.  If you would like to contribute to this page, please email us and we will post the example.

For a little background, here are the three phases of atheistic evolution, which all need to be true for the religion of Darwinism to be scientifically valid.

1)  Single-celled organisms with fully developed DNA and a cellular structure form from inanimate matter, such as rocks, water, or nitrogen.  Never before has anyone ever seen this, recreated this event, or provided a plausible explanation of how this happens.

2)  Single celled organisms reproduce into multi-celled organisms.  Has anyone ever observed this happening, or provided an explanation as to how this could happen?  No, of course not.  There’s no such thing as a 2, 3, 4, or 5 celled organism.  And no, colonies don’t count (like organisms living as a community or close proximity).

3)  New, complex genetic functions get added to the genome of animals and plants over time, accidentally.  Can anyone prove this has ever happened?  No.  Animals only use already existing genetic information (along with variations of existing genes) to adapt, while able to pass on genetic traits and information that they don’t necessarily display in their lifetime.

So, if nobody has ever observed, tested, proven, or even been able to explain a single aspect of evolution in terms of how we got here, why do people claim it is a scientific explanation for why we exist?  Much of the answer, of course, is misconception.

Macro Evolution vs. Micro Evolution

Macro evolution, the cornerstone of evolutionary belief, is where creatures transform into other kinds of creatures over time.  Fish morphing into gerbils, lizards transforming into dolphins, and other ridiculous but fun things are precisely what evolutionists believe.  Micro evolution, as some would call it, is the variance of existing traits that often occurs from generation to generation, or even over the course of a person or animal’s lifetime; some from variations of ALREADY EXISTING genes.  For instance, a brown-haired man and a blonde-haired woman can give birth to a black-haired child, and a person that once had chickenpox can develop an immunity to it once they catch it and fight it off.  Micro evolution happens, but fish will remain fish, gerbils will remain gerbils, and people will remain people.

Now, sometimes evolution sounds convincing, and people get confused.  Once you start believing that your brain is somehow the result of 4 billion years of randomness would confuse anyone.  But problems arise sometimes as they cite micro evolution as examples of macro evolution.  Here are a few examples.

The “Peppered Moth” Example

Many evolutionists use this as an example of

evolution.  In the middle of the 19th century England, a

study was done estimating the ratio of light colored to dark

colored moths in Manchester.  Most of the moths were

light colored, like the one camouflaged in the picture to the

right, and some were dark colored.  But once the trees became darker with the burning of coal in factories, the moth population became primarily dark, as they were camouflaged against the darker trees.

Wow, really?

Of course moths are going to survive better if they are camouflaged!  Would anyone expect anything different?  Evolutionists cite this as an example of natural selection, and proof of evolution in action.  We would cite this as a great example of how far into the depths of junk science evolutionary belief can fall in attempting to find validity.  But contrary to the evolutionist model, these moths are still moths, even to this day.  Was any new genetic information added in this example?  No, the moths were both light and dark colored from the start, meaning that the genetic information was already there.  We will, however, continue to monitor the situation and post any news regarding these moths morphing into sparrows (disclaimer: joke).

Developing Resistance

It is also popular for evolutionists to attempt to support their religious beliefs by citing examples of organisms or people developing resistance to harmful things, and adapting to their habitat.  Insects develop resistance to pesticides, people develop resistance to diseases, and animals adapt to their habitat.  What generally happens to insects, for example, is when pesticide is applied to a field, not all of the insects are killed.  Obviously, if all of them were killed by the pesticide, there would be no possibility of natural selection.  What happens is some of the insects, who display a higher tolerance for a pesticide, survive and reproduce, causing the population of that field to be resistant to the pesticide.  No new information was added to the genome of these insects; some of them were resistant from the start.  Such processes will not allow for any phylum jumping as evolutionists desire.

These are fine examples of variances of existing traits within the limits of an organisms’ gene pool.  Also consider Charlie Darwin’s famous finch example.  When the habitat of these finches in the Galapagos Islands changes, such as food, it has been shown that existing traits of these finches will vary in order to best suit the environment.  In the most documented case, the beak size & structure will accommodate drought that creates food supply problems.  An existing trait, such as a beak, is optimized over generations to adapt to a certain environment, all using small variances in ALREADY EXISTING information.  The finches had beaks from the beginning, and have beaks now, with minor variations along the way.  The finches, however, remain finches, to the dismay of evolutionists everywhere.  They have not yet morphed into Peacocks.  They are anticipated to remain finches for the foreseeable future.

Evolutionists also like to cite examples of bacteria developing resistance to harmful substances over generations.  And guess what - people can develop resistance to viruses and bacteria, within their own lifetime!  Bacteria gain resistance to antibiotics when some bacteria featuring the immunity trait transfer genes to other bacteria via horizontal gene transfer, or when bacteria lose genetic information that enables the antibiotic to function properly.  Do either of these processes add new genetic information?  Of course not.  Since no information was added to the finches or the bacteria in either of these examples, it does not explain how the finches or bacteria got there in the first place.  It also does not explain how the finches or bacteria could evolve into another kind of animal.

Of course God gave people, animals, plants, and even bacteria the ability to adapt!  It would be detrimental if this wasn’t the case.  If we didn’t have the ability to adapt to environments, fight off disease and harmful substances, or develop resistances, everything on the planet would have a tough time surviving a simple relocation, climate change, or food supply disruption.  God designed everything to have a great shot of keeping the species going.  When these adaptations occur, no genetic information is being added, it’s simply an example of existing traits being slightly varied to accommodate the environment.  Every experiment ever conducted that attempts to push the genetic limits of mutations and natural selection has resulted in the discovery that there are clear genetic limits for every organism.  Fruit flies have been forced to mutate through radiation an absurd number of times in laboratory experiments.  What they’ve discovered is every single mutated fruit fly is less able to survive naturally than the original, they never get anything but fruit flies with existing functions scrambled around, and it is impossible to create new complex functions or structures through mutations.  It is similar in people; all we get from small genetic mutations in people are slight changes in hair color, skin pigmentation, etc.  Some mutations DO result in various disorders and diseases, but they have never added complex structures or functions.  We’ve also found that the bigger the mutation, the more detrimental it is to the organism.

Evolutionists don’t seem to realize that animals can carry genetic possibilities for their kind’s gene pool without displaying every possible trait during their lifetime.  If you’ve ever seen the show “Little People, Big World,” you know that genetically shorter-than-average people can have kids who are of average height, which means they passed on the genes for average height without displaying those traits in their own lifetimes.  Are their average-height kids evolving from their shorter parents?  No, they are displaying traits already present in the human gene pool.  But through all the adaptations, bacteria remain bacteria, insects remain insects, and people remain people.

A good illustration of what mutations are capable of is thinking about what could happen in allowing a 1 year old to modify the code of a computer program.  Computers display color on a screen using red, green, and blue values of up to 65535 for each color in 16-bit depth.  If each color value is 65535, the color displayed is white.  If the red value was lowest and blue was the highest, you’d get a blue shade, and if all values were 0 you’d get black.  The 1 year old doesn’t know anything about computer software code, just like evolution through mutation and natural selection is mindless and purposeless.  If you sat the 1 year old in front of a computer, and allowed him to modify the code of the computer program by encouraging him to push random keys, do you think the computer program would gain any function?  No, the chances are realistically zero.  In fact, if the child beings typing things, it would undoubtedly cause bugs in the software.  But, with guidance from the parent, the child might be able to manage changing the color of something if he was only pushing numbers for one of the color display values.  Likewise, mutational capability in organisms are designed to NOT alter function, because undoubtedly random changes to code are virtually always going to mess something up.  Mutations are very limited, and every organism has clear genetic limits that are reached when traits are selected for, naturally or domestically.  You will never be able to selectively breed pigeons that are bigger than eagles, but you could select for short haired dogs and expect that eventually most or all of your dogs have short hair.

see also:  Methinks it is Like a Weasel

Bacteria adapting to Nylon

In 1975, Japanese researchers discovered that Flavobacterium sp. K172 and Pseudomonas sp. NK87 were able to produce a new enzyme in order to consume nylon, a substance not previously known to these bacteria.  Evolutionists rejoiced in this, clinging to it as hope for validating their beliefs. 

Ironically, it proves that Darwinistic, phylum-jumping evolution does not occur.

P. aeruginosa is an amazing bacteria, and was recently shown to also have the capability to adapt to nylon de novo, in as little as 9 days.(1)  This amazing bacteria has been shown to have the ability to adapt to other food sources as well, not previously known to the organism.  The problem evolutionists face is that it was originally studied and named in 1872.  Today, millions upon millions of bacterial generations later, this bacteria, with the capability to rapidly adapt, is still the same organism originally studied.  How detrimental to the poor Darwinists!  It seems as if nothing will ever prove their beliefs to be true!  The big problem here is that they claim we evolved from ape-like ancestors only a couple hundred thousand generations ago.  If a “simple,” single-celled organism doesn’t evolve into something else over millions of generations, how will apes turn into people in far less?  Every time we discover new information about biological organisms, it provides more supporting evidence for the truth of the creator, God.

1.) Prijambada, I.D., Negoro, S., Yomo, T. and Urabe, I., Emergence of nylon oligomer degradation enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through experimental evolution, Applied and Environmental Microbiology 61(5):2020–2022, 1995.

Of Monkey Skeletons and Men

The search never ends in trying to find the “missing link.”  The missing link is just as real as anything else that has never been seen by anyone, and is not known to exist.  Never-mind the fact that there is a serious lack of fossil evidence for the rocks-to-fish, fish-to-mammal, lizard-to-bird, or monkey-to-man crossovers anywhere... they are desperately hoping to find validation someday.  The funny thing is, every time you see a drawing, statue, sculpture, or illustration of a primitive looking caveman, ape-man, or the famous evolution illustration, it is the result of an evolutionist’s imagination in his desire for their religion to be true, not based on evidence.  Here are some of their best attempts at validating themselves.

Nebraska Man

Evolutionists found a wild pig’s tooth in 1922, and declared it to be from the “missing link.”  Evolutionists were so excited about this that they drew pictures of the non-existent monkey man, and even drew him a wife, all from a pig’s tooth.  They then named the imaginary primate “Nebraska Man.”  This period of make-believe lasted for 5 years, until they found the rest of the pig skeleton and realized their assumptions were a bit erroneous. No word on if they named it and put it in a museum next to a partial monkey skeleton named Lucy.

Piltdown Man

In 1912, Charles Dawson took a 500 year old human skull and an ape’s jaw, filed the apes teeth to look human, and presented it as proof and hope for the religion of evolution/atheism.  This was very exciting for evolutionists indeed... so exciting that this lasted for about 40 years, as evolutionists had found their guiding light.  Finally, in 1953, Joseph Weiner, Kenneth Oakley, and Wilfred Clark exposed this as a giant hoax, and evolution was again revealed to be completely fictitious.  It was back to square one for the search to find evidence to validate evolutionary belief.

Australopithecus - “Southern Ape”

Occasionally, people find skeletons of extinct apes.  They have almost identical skulls to apes of today, and it’s very hard to tell the difference.  They also have ear canal structures that show they did not walk upright... they walked on feet and hands, or climbed trees, just like apes today.  Some had legs and arms for climbing, just like some monkeys/apes today.  So what’s the difference between these apes and today’s apes?  Evolutionists know that they need to keep pretending to have found something, or else they won’t be in the news and nobody will take them seriously.  So they pretend that these apes, found as broken parts of skeletons, are human ancestors.  Any scientific research into these skeletons shows they were apes, but because evolutionists are clinging to nothing, they must use these as their best attempt at evidence.

There is an excellent website with a great deal of information about these apes here.

Or, read about “Lucy,” the most valuable, broken, incomplete monkey skeleton ever.

9+ Foot Long Dinosaur Crocodile-Headed Fish, “Tiktaalik”

Recently, evolutionists have declared a 9+ foot long dinosaur fish to be their ancestor.  News stories read “Missing Link Fossil Discovered.”  This is all because, as the evolutionists claim, the dino-fish had fins with internal skeletal bones.

Wow!  A 9-foot fish with bones in its fins!  If that isn’t your forefather, I don’t know what is.  It also had scales, jaws that were at least a foot long, a tail, and gills... not lungs.  But because the fish had fin bones, evolutionists say it could walk across land.  Confused? Never fear, “scientists” are on the case.  They plan to attempt to find more of these ancestor fish, as well as “try to determine why this fish found it useful to leave the water.”  (quoted from Bloomberg)

So the fish found it useful to leave the water... that’s how they grow legs.  Take notes, because this could be on a test in a public school (Thank you, ACLU). 

If a fish with gills and no lungs leaves water, it:

a)    Dies.

b)    Possibly flops around, and then dies.

c)    Grows legs and lungs, and proceeds to morph into monkeys and buffalos.

If you answered (c), you’re an evolutionist!  However, the correct answers would be (a) or (b).

Which one do you really believe?

Archaeoraptor - “Dino-Bird”

In 1999, evolutionists (again) thought their savior had come.  Finally, a fossil was found that proved lizards morph into birds!  It was a lizard, but it also had feathered wings like a bird.  National Geographic, a popular evolutionist magazine, had great photos and articles that were presented with joy and excitement.  Following this article, newspapers printed stories all around the world, in order to inform the people that finally a missing link had been discovered, and evolution could be stated as real, provable fact. 

Not too long after, it was discovered that somebody in China had just glued bones together from different animals in order to create a fake lizard-bird.  And, yet again, evolutionists get stuck back at square one with absolutely no evidence to legitimize their baseless beliefs.  The only way to find a transitional species required for evolution to be true is to glue a bird’s wings onto a lizard.  In light of this, it becomes apparent that you shouldn’t believe everything an evolutionist tells you! 

The Shape of Things

A very popular thing for evolutionists to do is take pictures (often illustrations) of fossils, line them up by shape, and say “Look!  This line of fossils gradually changes over time!  This proves evolution.”  What they fail to mention is that they have no proof that any of the fossils descended from any of the others.  The logic behind this is easily proven to be flawed; just take a spoon, a spork, and a fork, and line them up on a table in that order.  Does that prove that spoons over time morph into sporks, which then in turn morph into forks?  No, it just means that a company created 3 kinds of dinnerware.  You can line up many different objects according to shape, and give the appearance that they are morphing into each-other over time.  You could even take an oven, a microwave, and a TV, and put them in a line in that order.  They are somewhat similar shapes, if you line them up.  Does that mean that two ovens got together and reproduced into a microwave, which then morphed into a television?  Of course not- but this is the logic evolutionists adhere to.  They believe that one day inanimate matter got together and decided to create a living organism far more complex than any TV, accidently, and that this mindless process is how water morphs into people.  That certainly is not science.

Check out www.TheMythOfEvolution.com for more evolutionist shape-fun.

Genetic Similarities

Evolutionists like to run around telling people about how the DNA of monkeys is similar to the DNA of humans.  “Look!  Human and chimp DNA are 97% similar!  That means we descended from apes!”

Hmm, let’s see... I bet we could apply that same logic to something else in order to reveal the illogical, unscientific assumptions of evolution.  How about:

Tables and chairs are both made of wood and nails.  Thus, chairs morph into tables over time, by accident.  Also, nobody built either one. 

Gotta love the faulty logic necessary for the theory of evolution to survive!  All organisms have some DNA similarity.  In fact, according to evolutionists, we share half our DNA with bananas!    Does that mean we are “half” banana?  It is obvious that all organisms, especially when comparing humans to mammals, are made up of similar materials, and many similar functioning structures.  It should also be obvious that similar genetic makeup is completely necessary, or else how would we eat anything?  Almost everything we consume is a living organism, so it makes perfect sense that plants, mammals and even fish would be made of much of the same materials we are. How could you possibly design a plethora of organisms that were made completely and radically different, and expect them to interact together in the same ecosystem?  There would have to be different kinds of food for everything.  Lucky for us, God is a genius, so both humans AND monkeys can eat bananas, breathe oxygen, and drink water, and a cow’s waste actually fertilizes the plants it needs to eat, providing the cow with more food.  Bees have an affinity for pollen, so they fertilize flowers.  Animals intake oxygen and expel carbon dioxide, while plants intake carbon dioxide and expel oxygen.  Brilliant self-regulating design when you think about it, isn’t it?  = )

________________________________

Also check out http://www.trueorigin.org/camplist.asp.  There’s enough information and links there to scientifically refute any claim of an evolutionist.

** Videos **

Expelled the Movie with Ben Stein (Watch the Trailer)

The Case for a Creator with Lee Strobel - Part 1 of 6

The Case for a Creator with Lee Strobel - Part 2

The Case for a Creator with Lee Strobel - Part 3

The Case for a Creator with Lee Strobel - Part 4

The Case for a Creator with Lee Strobel - Part 5

The Case for a Creator with Lee Strobel - Part 6

Unlocking the Mystery of Life - Part 1 of 7

Unlocking the Mystery of Life - Part 2

Unlocking the Mystery of Life - Part 3

Unlocking the Mystery of Life - Part 4

Unlocking the Mystery of Life - Part 5

Unlocking the Mystery of Life - Part 6

Unlocking the Mystery of Life - Part 7

http://www.answersingenesis.org/video/ondemand/

http://www.illustramedia.com/productions.htm