Examining the Challenges to Evolutionary Theory

  1. No Observable Evolution Across Kinds
    The transformation of one kind of organism into another is not occurring in a measurable way today, nor can it be definitively proven to have happened in the past.

  2. No New Kinds Observed
    Organisms do not evolve into fundamentally new kinds. While we may discover previously undocumented species, this only reveals gaps in our knowledge, not evidence of new kinds emerging.

  3. No New Organs or Structures
    All observed biological structures appear fully formed upon discovery. Changes to existing structures result from decay and degradation, not progressive development.

  4. Gaps Between Organisms
    There are distinct separations between different kinds of organisms. Transitional forms are not observed, and the so-called “missing links” remain absent.

  5. Life Comes Only from Life
    Life has never been observed arising from nonliving material. Organisms reproduce after their own kind, without spontaneous generation.

  6. Mutations Are Not Progressive
    Mutations, the supposed drivers of evolution, are random and typically neutral or harmful. They do not lead to beneficial, cumulative improvements in complexity or intelligence.

  7. Stasis, Not Change, in Nature
    The fossil record and present-day observations show organisms remaining unchanged. Many modern species resemble their ancient counterparts but in smaller sizes. Extinction, rather than evolution, is what we observe.

  8. Fossil Layers Are Not in Order
    Contrary to textbook illustrations, fossil layers are not found in a consistent, sequential order. Layers are often out of place, inverted, missing, or interlaced with “younger” and “older” fossils in unexpected arrangements.

  9. Polystrate Fossils Challenge Geological Timelines
    Fossils that extend through multiple strata, such as upright tree trunks and even large animal skeletons, contradict the presumed slow accumulation of geological layers.

  10. Complexity Exists in the Oldest Fossils
    Supposedly ancient organisms, such as trilobites, exhibit highly sophisticated features like advanced eyesight, challenging the idea that complexity evolved gradually over time.

  11. Nature Does Not Support the Evolutionary “Tree of Life”
    Rather than a single trunk branching into increasing complexity, the fossil record suggests an "orchard" model, where distinct kinds appear fully formed from the beginning and only vary within their kinds.

  12. No True Transitional Forms in the Fossil Record
    Despite claims to the contrary, no fossils have been found that serve as definitive intermediate forms between major kinds of organisms. Missing links are missing because they never existed.

  13. Artistic Interpretations Are Not Evidence
    Illustrations of evolutionary transitions are based on imagination, not empirical evidence. A drawing of a cow turning into a whale does not make it scientifically valid.

  14. Ancient Humans Were Highly Intelligent
    Early civilizations demonstrated complex language and engineering skills that, in some cases, have yet to be replicated. The concept of a linear "Stone Age to Iron Age" progression is oversimplified.

  15. Cause and Effect Demand an Intelligent Cause
    Every effect must have a greater cause. Intelligence and complexity do not arise from randomness but require input from a superior intelligence.

  16. Thermodynamics Contradicts Evolution

  • The First Law (Energy Conservation) indicates the universe could not have created itself and must have been complete from the beginning.
  • The Second Law (Entropy) shows that systems degrade over time rather than build up in complexity. The universe is running down, not evolving upward.
  1. The Big Bang Contradicts Logical Order
    Explosions do not create increasing complexity and order; they produce chaos and destruction. The Big Bang does not logically account for the ordered structure of the universe.

  2. Star Formation Is Not Supported by Natural Laws
    The Gas Laws indicate that expanding gases resist gravitational collapse, making the natural formation of stars highly improbable.

  3. The Law of Biogenesis Stands Firm
    Life arises only from life and reproduces after its own kind. There is no evidence of life spontaneously generating from nonliving matter.

  4. Undirected Energy Does Not Create Order
    Random energy input, such as radiation or explosions, does not build complexity; it causes destruction. Order and complexity require an intelligent source.

  5. Design Requires a Blueprint
    Just as no master craftsman builds without a plan, complexity and intelligence in life indicate the presence of a purposeful design.

  6. Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution
    The random formation of complex biological molecules, such as enzymes, amino acids, and DNA, is statistically impossible.

  7. No Advantage in Transitional Forms
    Half-evolved structures, such as partial wings or incomplete eyes, would be detrimental rather than beneficial, contradicting the idea of progressive evolution.

  8. No Evidence of Reptiles Becoming Birds
    Fundamental biological differences, such as lung structures in reptiles and birds, make evolutionary transitions between them impossible.

  9. Biological Systems Exhibit Remarkable Design
    Features such as the woodpecker’s tongue, the Bombardier Beetle’s chemical defense, insect metamorphosis, and the complexity of the human eye and brain indicate purposeful engineering.

  10. Single-Celled Organisms Are Not Simple
    Even bacteria and amoebas have intricate internal systems, challenging the notion that life began as "simple" organisms.

  11. Life Is Irreducibly Complex
    DNA and RNA require each other to function, along with dozens of specific proteins, making a step-by-step evolutionary process impossible.

  12. Recognizing Design in Nature
    Humans instinctively distinguish between randomness and purposeful design. The complexity in biological systems suggests intelligent intent.

  13. No Vestigial Organs
    All human organs once thought to be "vestigial" have been found to serve important functions, refuting claims of evolutionary leftovers.

  14. Evolution Cannot Explain Key Biological Concepts
    The origins of sex, symbiosis, and altruism remain unexplained by evolutionary theory, further challenging its validity.





GreedyCapybara7

Shared publicly - 2012-03-07 10:25:04

Listen very carefully I will correct you only once, then you must NEVER ask the same questions again because you have an answer...agreed? ANSWER ALL THE THINGS! 1.your "kinds" don't exist, if you are talking about living organisms then that would act against evolution as we currently understand it not for it. 2.your "kinds" don't exist, if you are talking about living organisms then that would act against evolution as we currently understand it not for it. 3.Italian Wall Lizard, Nylonase Bacteria; look it up! 4.your "kinds" don't exist, if you are talking about living organisms then that would act against evolution as we currently understand it not for it. 5.not evolution but Abiogenesis by Spontaneous Generation is not Abiogenesis by Chemical Progression enjoy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8nYTJf62sE 6.mutations are random, they do not differentiate between being good and bad, that's natural selections job. Beneficial mutations exist, those of drought tolerant plants to a lack of water, those of nylonase bacteria, etc. are all beneficial. 7.not evolution ...no animals or plants existed in the Precambrian and no plants until the Carboniferous (or possibly VERY late Cambrian), no true animals until the VERY late Proterozoic and no vertebrates until the late Cambrian, there are no Tetrapods until the early Devonian, no plecental mammals until the late Cretaceous and no Hominids until the Tertiary period...so what's your question? 8.not evolution they are always found younger-older, not mixed up. Layers may be missing but they are NEVER switched...and there is a place you can "dig straight down" it's called the Grand Canyon...or any other canyon of enough height for that matter. 9.not evolution enjoy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgpSrUWQplE 10.Trilobites emerged 100million years after this development, it was this development of complex eyes that lead to the Cambrian Explosion...do some research your dates are off. 11.your right this tree is only present in every aspect of genetics, comparative phylogenetic research, the fossil record, biochemistry, taxonomy, cellular biology and mainstream biology...it's not found anywhere. 12.so every single: -homonid(ape-man) -gorgonopsid(mammal hipped reptile) -diectodont(warm blooded reptile) -rhipidistian("later" lobe finned fish) -diapsid(early reptile) -anthracosaur(reptile like amphibian) -synapsid(sail backed reptile) -labyrinthodont(thick skinned amphibian) -basal archosaur(non-avian dino-crocodile) -prosauropod(therapod-saurapod) -cylodont(furred reptile) -archosaur(dino-crocodile) -non-avian therapod -avian therapod -iberomesornithid bird -temnospondyl salamander -therizinosaurid therapod -ornithopod dinosaur -leptictid -perissodactyl -mesonychian -palaeocene cetacean -proboscidian -perissodactyl -creodont -artiodactyl -"bear-dog" (actual name=cynodictis) are all either faked or made up? 13.not evolution and not what happened 14.not evolution and yes "he" was pre-stone age dude, look it up 15. not the law of cause and effect 16.not evolution never was, matter can be condensed from energy, all the energy needed is present in a singularity and that's not the second law of thermodynamics 17.not evolution Big Bang was not an explosion, rather an expansion of a singularity...try doing a primary school physics test before commenting on the big bang 18.not evolution that's not a perfect gas law, hydrogen is not a perfect gas and hydrogen plasma is not a gas (hence the term plasma) 19.not evolution that's not the law of biogenesis 20.not evolution not correct 21.not evolution not correct 22.not evolution not correct, RNA needs no proteins to replicate, they become their own replicaters and no chance needed that's what natural selection is for 23.not correct, a "half developed eye" has an advantage over no eyes for example box jellyfish that have eye spots have an advantage over blind jellyfish. 24.not evolution strange, because they do that in a modern birds development and throughout therapod history. 25.all incorrect, please to research before the regurgitation old debunked arguments 26. not evolution eukaryotic cells yes, most prokaryores no 27.not evolution to create mRNA yes, to create RNA...no, RNA can form on it's own, replicate on it's own, mutate on it's own and decompose on its own. 28.not evolution just like when we "see" the earth is flat we instinctively know it is flat? without testable evidence neither claim has any ground...thanks for playing 29.not evolution your kidding right? not only are you resorting to "Darwin said this, Darwin said that", not only did you take a passage completely out of context (not that it would matter) but you are ignoring <50% of all proteins produced by humans and most half developed organs and vestiges. 30.not evolution we've discussed all three before, go back to the page made for me and look over our conversation again

MaximusMcc

Shared publicly - 2012-03-08 00:49:03

Does this mean you are finally admitting defeat? I will hang your white flag upon my wall proudly!

GreedyCapybara7

Shared publicly - 2012-03-10 09:14:58

Max-Does this mean you are finally admitting defeat? I will hang your white flag upon my wall proudly! Greedy-please point to where I have said anything even remotely related to that assertion.

MaximusMcc

Shared publicly - 2012-03-11 01:32:36

Oh I can see it in about every sentence you write. However looking over your responses to my posts it seems quite evident to me that you cannot cope. None and I mean "NONE" of you explanations are correct. You get another big fat "F" is this was a test but since its just an exercise I will give you more time to look over the information before you are quizzed again. Finals will be due by the end of the month!

GreedyCapybara7

Shared publicly - 2012-03-11 02:46:52

Max-Oh I can see it in about every sentence you write. However looking over your responses to my posts it seems quite evident to me that you cannot cope. None and I mean “NONE” of you explanations are correct. You get another big fat “F” is this was a test but since its just an exercise I will give you more time to look over the information before you are quizzed again. Finals will be due by the end of the month! Greedy-pardon, please show me where any are wrong. If you wish to have sources I will supply them however ALL can be corroborated by 5min of research on google. However beyond that I wish to elaborate on what you are saying; you are saying that the mutation that lead to nylonase is not beneficial, you are saying that all of the subsets I named are either made up or don't exist (despite the fact that they are founds in almost every museum around the world), you are saying that hydrogen is a perfect gas and hydrogen plasma is also a perfect gas (despite the fact that gas and plasma are two different states of matter), the Big Bang was an explosion, proteins are required for the formation of ALL RNA and all of your "problems" with evolution relate to evolution...good luck

GreedyCapybara7

Shared publicly - 2012-03-13 02:54:24

Here's the difference between you and me Max; if you ask a question I will answer it, if you make a point I will address it. I will not make things up or simply change the subject; I have more credibility than that, if I ask a question it's because I'm interested in your input not because I think there is no answer and if I make a point it is either to address one of yours or because I fell it has to be dealt with. I will never bring up the same point twice nor ask a question more than twice because I listen to what you have to say. When I make a point I can support it with rigid explanations and definitions as far down as the standard model if you wish, I can sight scientific papers written on the subject (though prefer not to) and can back up all of my claims with testable, repeatable and scientific evidence where as you cannot/have yet to do anything of the sort. If you want to discuss Evolution Theory I'm all ears, I'll even discuss Physics and Chemistry with you when appropriate; but if you want to pretend that Evolution stretches over more than it does, change the subject, call me a lire or pretend that Evolution is a religion then beyond proving you wrong on all accounts I can also prove that you are full of shit.

Sign Up To Comment