Here you will find 9 great 'Proofs' for the evolution theory and why they are all false.
http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=53

OLAADEGBU:

Here you will find 9 great 'Proofs' for the evolution theory and why they are all false.
http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=53

The Nine Great 'Proofs' for Evolution: and Why They Are All False!

Proof #1 - Evolutionists Claim That “Things” Change over Time, Thus “Proving” Evolution. Do They?

This proof is discussed in three parts which make up the whole. Evolutionists make three claims to support their position that things do change over time. The claims are: that genetic information changes beneficially by random chance over time; that natural selection and survival of the fittest are driving these mutational changes “upward” to produce greater intelligence and complexity; and, that the adaptation of species to new environments demonstrates evolution at work.

Genetics

Evolutionists say that biological life forms change in an “upward” direction, becoming more and more complex, through spontaneous mutation of genetic information. However, the word mutation means by definition “copying error.” A mutation is a structural change in the hereditary material which makes the offspring different from the parents. Mutations are errors in copying the genetic codes.

You may copy something perfectly or imperfectly, but you cannot copy something more perfectly. If we copy something perfectly, then there is no change from one generation to the next. If we copy something imperfectly, then the information is degraded or corrupted and the next generation will suffer from the imperfections of the copying processes.

Gene pools contain lots of information but "new" genes, that are "new pieces of information," are never produced. New information does not come into existence without the input from a greater outside intelligence. Mutations are random and not directed. Mutations affect and are affected by many genes and other intergenic information acting in combination with one another. Neither is new information produced simply from an input of undirected energy.

The addition of excess undirected energy will accomplish nothing beneficial; it will destroy the previously existing system. For example: if a computer designed to operate on 110 volt electricity is plugged into a 220 volt power supply it will destroy the computer. But, all that we did was to add excess undirected energy into the computers’ system.

The Laws of Genetics are conservative, not creative; these laws only allow for the copying or rearranging of previously existing information which is then passed on in new combinations to the next generation. Even ardent evolutionists like, Dr. Stephen J. Gould of Harvard University, Dr. Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History in New York and Dr. Colin Patterson of the British Museum of Natural History, have admitted that there are no transitional life forms found in the fossil record. None!

Random mutations produce microevolution, which is only variation within a created kind. Random mutations cannot produce macroevolution, which would be the supposed change from one kind into a different kind.

Genetic research which has attempted to force spontaneous mutations has proven to be futile in producing beneficial mutations. Evolutionists cannot adequately answer the question: "Where did the original information that is being copied come from?"

Since 1910, over 3,000 mutations in Fruit Flies have been documented, yet there is no documentation of a Fruit Fly evolving into something else.

Do things change over time?

Consider ants, horseshoe crabs, bats or algae. Many ant species appear in amber from the Dominican Republic, which evolutionists claim is 25 to 40 million years old. Yet they look exactly the same as they do today. Fossil horseshoe crabs claimed to be 150 million years old are identical to those found alive. The oldest skeleton of a fossil bat, dated as Eocene by evolutionists and supposedly 50 million years old, looks exactly like the skeleton of modern bats. The “oldest” fossils found on earth are said to be blue-green algae colonies one billion years old; yet these fossil colonies seem to be duplicates of living colonies.

There has been an often touted story told by evolutionists about the supposed evolutionary changes that occurred in the English Peppered Moth. They declared that this story "proved" that evolution could be seen at work in nature.

The story goes something like this. During the Industrial Revolution of the 19th Century, the English Peppered Moth changed from a mixed population of individuals that were mostly white with black specks and fewer black individuals with white specks to a population that was mostly black with only a few white. The idea was that coal burning had darkened the tree trunks and buildings in England and that the white individuals stood out against the dark background and the black individuals were camouflaged; thus, whiter individuals were eliminated by birds eating them first and the black were protected and they propagated an ever larger percentage of the total population.

The story is, however, a total hoax! In the 1950’s, a British physician, Bernard Kettlewell, wanted to try to prove that evolution was true and that natural selection was at work in nature as Darwin had believed. In order to get his proof he tried to release English Peppered Moths during the day near trees with bark of various colors. He wrote an article for the Scientific American magazine and declared that his experiment was evidence of Darwin’s predictions. His article has become the foundation of hundreds of textbook references to evolution at work in nature.

In the 1980’s evidence was given that this story is a hoax. First, English Peppered Moths are nocturnal and do not fly around during the day when birds might see them. Dr. Kettlewell had to wake the moths up, and in their confusion of seeing daylight, more landed on him than on the nearby trees. Second, the Moths do not land on the trunks of trees where they might be seen by predators (if they were out in the daytime) because they live in the canopies of trees where they are well hidden. Third, the photographs of these moths sitting on tree trunks and reproduced in countless textbooks were staged. The moths were actually dead and had to be glued onto the trees in order to take the now famous photographs.

What does the English Peppered Moth teach us about natural selection? They demonstrate the fixity of species and the natural and easily understood lateral adaptation allowed within a gene pool, fully consistent with the creationist position. The structure of the moth did not change over time. This moth illustrates lateral adaptation, not progressive evolution.

We may summarize the factual information about mutations in these five statements.

First, mutations are harmful, since they are, by definition, copying errors. Only a perfect copy of previously existing information is desirable. Anything else is a copying error, and that means that the information will become worse, not better, over time.

Second, mutations are rare and beneficial ones are unknown. You can’t get better than perfection. Any copy must either remain perfect, or if a change does occur, then that change would have to go “downhill.” Consider these examples. What happens when a story is retold from one person to another in a string of ten people? Do we end up with the original story? If an original cartoon and caption are copied 100 times prior to your receiving it, are the lines a little wavy? Are there black specks on the paper that were not on the original? Has the picture improved or gotten worse for copying? What would happen if a blind, tone-deaf person were to randomly change the tension of the strings on a perfectly tuned piano? Would the piano stay in tune? Would he ever get it back in perfect tune by random chance? These are useful examples of what happens when mutations occur.

Third, mutations do not create new organs; they only modify existing ones. We have never seen a new organ appear fully developed and ready to use. We have seen existing organs become deformed and unusable through mutation.

Fourth, mutations do not accumulate; that is, they do not build, or have an additive effect, one after another to form a chain of major evolutionary changes. Any change that does occur is diluted in the very next generation so that there is no long term net beneficial effect.

Fifth, mutations lead to the wrong kind of change. What occurs is only the deterioration and corruption of the previous information, not the building up of information and structures.

The Laws of Genetics do not fit with the random chance progressively “upward” increase in either intelligence or complexity which the theories of evolution would require. The Laws of Genetics were written by the Creator to maintain and preserve the information that He had encoded in the original kinds as described in Genesis Chapter One.

Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest

Evolutionists claim that the driving force for the progressive upward increase in complexity and intelligence of living organisms is due to natural selection and survival of the fittest, “nature red [bloody] in tooth and claw” as Charles Darwin put it. Is this position correct, logical or even plausible?

Natural selection was first a creationist argument! William Edward Blyth (1818-1873) in 1835, 24 years before Charles Darwin, stated that natural selection was only a conservative process that removes defective organisms and keeps species pure and strong. Dr. Thomas Huxley, M.D., and known as "Darwin’s Bulldog" in England, chastised Darwin for not giving Blyth the credit for the concept. Even though Darwin verbally agreed with Huxley that he should have given Blyth the credit, Darwin refused to do so in print.

Creation believing scientists of the past four hundred years have consistently said that natural selection and survival of the fittest were the methods designed by God to preserve the purity of the created kinds, thus preserving the kinds as closely as possible to the design with which God started. By weeding out the genetically defective, the older and the infirm individuals in a population, those remaining were healthy and strong versus weak and extinct. Wildlife management research done around the world has proven that natural selection and survival of the fittest do not work in nature to produce progressive "upward" evolution, but rather that these mechanisms in nature work to preserve and maintain the purity of the kind.

Predators, which are said to be the ones who "weed" out a population, do not take the defective or infirm only; predators are opportunistic hunters and take any individual, including the best and strongest, regardless of their condition. Predators do not go out and make value judgments. Predators (lions) do not look at the individuals in a herd (antelope) and say to themselves, "That one is genetically defective." Or, "That one is old, so I’ll take that one." Predators take prey based upon the opportunity to catch it. If the strongest and most intelligent member of a herd makes a mental mistake and gets isolated from the herd, the predators will take that one first. When a Killer Whale swims through a school of fish it is not the survival of the fittest; it is the survival of the most fortunate - the survival of the luckiest.

Evolutionists propose that the following formula describes their myth: Mutations Cause Change + Nature Causes Change = Observed Evolution. What is the real formula? Adaptation + Imagination = The Myth of Evolution.

Interestingly enough, recent research in the Galapagos Islands, which made Charles Darwin so famous, has shown that small populations often lead to extinction rather than speciation and this has caused evolutionists to demand ever increasing land areas to be set aside in order to prevent extinction from a lack of biodiversity. This would seem to go counter to the prior evolutionary belief that it was isolation in new environments which was the cause of new species.

Evolutionists claim that over time things get bigger, better, faster and smarter. The physical record shows, however, that plants and animals in the past were bigger than they are today. Consider the cockroach, dragonfly and Chambered Nautilus. Today, cockroaches grow up to 2 3/4 inches long, but in the fossil record they are often up to 18 inches long. Today, we have dragonflies that are up to six inches across in wingspan, but in the fossil record we find them with wingspans of up to 50 inches across. Today, chambered nautiluses grow to be 10 ½ inches in diameter, but in the fossil record we find them up to eight feet in diameter. So, things aren’t getting bigger, better, faster and smarter. They are getting smaller, worse, slower and dumber.

Adaptation of Species

Evolutionists claim that adaptation of species to new environments proves that evolution occurs. It is true that intelligent outside manipulation of breeding can produce new combinations which yield a new specific variety, or sometimes called a "race," of a “kind” of species. The variety produced can only be maintained, however, if the outside intelligence (human beings) continues to guide the breeding process in order to maintain the purity of that variety.

As everyone knows, dogs and cats are indiscriminate breeders and, if left to their own devices, will produce a "Heinz 57" kind every time. You can take the two biggest horses you can find and they will not continue to give birth to ever larger horses. There is a limit which cannot be exceeded. This also works in the opposite direction. If it is possible to breed ever smaller dogs down to "miniature," and then "toy;" shouldn’t it be possible to continue the process until dogs became so small that eventually a breed of invisible dogs were produced? This, of course, is nonsense. There is a limit to how small a species may get and still remain viable.

What Charles Darwin observed in the 1800’s was the artificial selection that produced many of the purebred varieties that we see today. Artificial selection occurs when people decide which animal or plant will breed with another. Darwin knew that if he stated that artificial selection was occurring in nature by random chance no one would believe him. Therefore, he wrote deceptively that "natural selection" was the driving force of evolution.

Please refer to the comment on the Galapagos Islands above concerning the effect of environment on species. Lateral adaptation within a gene pool is consistent with the creationist position; gene pools may be "pushed" to the edge of the envelope by human breeders but one kind never becomes a different kind.

Pure breeding and hybridization have produced extremes at the edge of the gene pool; but the sugar content of sugar beets and the speed of racehorses have been maximized by breeding in the past and very little additional change is genetically possible in the future.

The ability of life forms to adapt to new environments actually demonstrates that they were designed/created. Only the farsightedness of a perfect Creator could take into consideration all the future factors and design plants and animals to be able to survive under so many varied conditions.

- See more at: http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=53#sthash.gu4Fa9nx.dpuf

Proof #2—Evolutionists Claim That the Fossil Record "Proves" Evolution. Does it?

The evolutionist uses a false form of circular reasoning to "prove" that he is correct. First, he starts with the assumption that he is correct, by faith. Second, he goes to the other side of the circle, digs up fossils from different places around the world and arranges them in the order he "wants" them to be in. Last, he goes back around the circle and says, "You see, the fossils prove that I am right." This logic is patently illogical.

When the Greeks developed the science of logic 2,500 years ago, they called this kind of reasoning a tautology; that it was circular reasoning that falls under its own weight, that it was patently illogical. If you allow me to rearrange the evidence I can prove anything I want to, can’t I? You cannot rearrange the evidence and then claim proof for anything!

If you remember little else from this material, remember this! One of the single greatest differences between a creation-believing scientist and an evolution-believing scientist is that the creationist does not rearrange his evidence and the evolutionist does!

The creationist has no incentive to want to rearrange the evidence. No matter what the evidence is, no matter where the evidence is found, as long as it is found honestly, the creationist has no incentive to move it. We may not understand it now; we may not have the correct interpretation of it now; we may never understand it until He comes back to tell us what it is all about; but we believe that whatever is found honestly will be consistent with a Creator God and we have no incentive to rearrange the evidence. The evolutionist must rearrange his evidence before he claims proof; and that is a monstrous difference!

The evolutionist claims that the fossil evidence is the slow and gradual accumulation over millions and billions of supposed years of dead plants and animals. These remains are supposedly contained in layers which are "in the right [evolutionary] order." This order is supposed to be the order found in the typical Geologic Time Column or Geologic Time Scale so often printed in evolutionary science textbooks. This series of fossil bearing rock layers starts with the present at the top and goes down, or "back in time," billions of supposed years. These charts typically show that single-celled creatures came from nonliving matter (rocks) by random chance; that once alive, these single-celled creatures inherently became multiple-celled creatures; that multiple-celled creatures eventually evolved into man.

What is the truth about the rock layers? The truth is that there is not one location on earth where you can take a pick and a shovel and, starting at the surface, dig straight down and find the rock layers in the "perfect [evolutionary]" order which the evolutionist’s claim them to be in. The Geologic Column does not exist in nature; it only exists in the textbooks and in the minds of those who chose to believe it. The Geologic Time Column is nothing more than evolutionary speculation and arbitrary opinion. No where in the world is it to be found!

To be fair, there are 26 locations of the surface of the earth where the major layers may be found in the "textbook" order, however, that is only if you look at them from a couple of miles away. If you look at them up close and personal there are many discrepancies to be found in those layers.

More importantly, if there are only 26 locations on the surface of the earth where the layers may be found in the order shown in the textbooks, what do you do about the other million locations on earth where the layers cannot be found in the textbook order?

What do we find in the real world? We find that the rock layers are out of order, upside down, alternating back and forth, and missing. Most often we find only two to four layers in any one location. Often these layers are not in the "right" order according to evolutionists. Often we find "older"layers on top of "younger" layers. One such example is Heart Mountain in Wyoming, where the top two layers of the mountain are upside down, according to evolutionary philosophy, and there is 300 million years supposed years missing in between.

How can this be? The evolutionist replies that this is an example of "overthrust." Overthrust is supposed to be a place where a large section of rock layers have been broken off by seismic activity and then pushed up and over the adjacent rock layers. True overthrust is rare and easily detected because when it does occur it leaves a layer of broken rock pieces between the layers of rock which are moving against each other. Note, however, that the amount of pressure necessary to push large volumes of rock up and over other layers would be enough pressure to pulverize the rock being pushed. Also, most “out of order” rock layers do not even have dust in between then. Overthrust cannot explain the many rock layers which are found “out of order” all over the world.

You only find fossils in sedimentary rock. The word sedimentary comes from the word sediment, which is what remains at the bottom of a glass of water after you throw dirt into it. Sedimentary rock was mud which dried out into hard rock. Sediment comes basically from water-carried material, although a small amount may be formed from windblown debris.

I would like for you to consider the following statement and then I will ask you a question. Seventy-five to eighty percent of the entire earth’s surface is covered with dried-out mud layers containing trillions of dead plants and animals that all drowned. Does that sound like the result of slow and gradual accumulation over millions and billions of supposed years? Or, does that sound like what we would expect to find as the result of a recent rapid one year long worldwide flood? The fossil evidence is best understood as trillions of dead plants and animals which drowned in a recent flood. Only a worldwide flood such as the Flood of Noah could produce the rock layers which we find covering the earth today.

Many of the fossil layers are found in highly folded or convoluted shapes. Have you ever tried to bend hard flat rock layers? Hard rock does not bend, it breaks. These folded layers of material demonstrate that they were formed by water deposition, and then folded by tectonic activity while they were still wet; and only after they were folded did they dry out into hard rock (Please see Psalm 104:8.)

Eighty to eighty-five percent of the rock layers found on the surface of the earth do not have even three of the layers in the "correct [evolutionary] order."

Research conducted in sedimentation laboratories at Colorado State University and in France proves conclusively that in nature sedimentary layers do not form slowly one on top of the other as evolutionists claim; but, rather that sedimentary layers form by growing sideways as the result of sorting by size and velocity as they are extended by water deposition flowing in a specific direction. This is well documented revolutionary research refuting evolutionary thinking.

Have you ever been to a limestone cave full of stalactites and stalagmites? If you go to Carlsbad Caverns in New Mexico, Mammoth Cave in Kentucky or Luray Caverns in Virginia, you will be told that it takes perhaps 10 to 20 million years for a limestone cave to form. Does it?

In the basement of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., stalactites up to five feet long were formed in only 45 years. So, I guess it doesn’t take 20 million years to get a limestone cave. At Carlsbad Caverns, the body of a dead bat was found encased in a rapidly growing stalagmite. The body of the bat had not had enough time to decompose before it was covered up. Recent research has demonstrated that in natural caves stalactites and stalagmites grow an average of four inches per year.

Is fossilization a slow process or a fast process? Does it take millions of years to get a fossil? After something is alive and then dies there are only three requirements for fossilization to take place. The dead plant or animal must be buried rapidly. This is obvious in order to prevent decay on the surface. While wind does bury things, it also unburies things just as fast. Only water buries things quickly and buries them well. Next, there must be no oxygen present or decay will still occur. Last, the cavity must remain undisturbed, otherwise oxygen would get in and whatever had not already fossilized would decay.

Fossil fish have been discovered in northern South America and even their gills were preserved. The gills of a dead fish are the first thing to decompose and are usually completely gone within four days. These fish must have been fossilized in less than four days or their gills would not have been preserved.

A man-made hat, a Fedora, was found fossilized after only 40 years on the island of Tasmania. Another hat, a Bowler, was found in New Zealand in 1946. It had fossilized in only 60 years. Next to the Bowler, we found a whole ham fossilized. In 1903, at Eureka Springs, Arkansas, we found a bag full of ground flour; the bag and flour were fossilized. Apparently fossilization must be a rapid process.

There is a category of fossilized material known as polystrate fossils. The word poly means "many" and strate refers to "layers." These are fossils which are found to penetrate through two or more layers of the fossil record, meaning that they supposedly existed in two or more of the evolutionary time frames. Polystrate fossils are usually tree trunks, stumps or roots, although they may be bone(s).

We find millions of fossilized tree trunks all over the world which “penetrate” multiple layers of the fossil record. Could these trees have lived for millions of years while these layers formed around them? No. The existence of polystrate fossils shows that the fossil record accumulated very quickly.

Human artifacts have been found in rock layers dating supposedly as far back as 400 to 500 million years. Over 300 man-made stone tools were found during the California Gold Rush Period (1850 to 1890). They were found in gold bearing gravels and are cataloged at the University of California, Berkeley. The gravels were supposedly 9 to 55 million years old. In 1937, a ceramic spoon was found in a piece of Pennsylvania medium grade coal. In 1889, a fired clay human figurine was discovered in Nampa, Idaho, 320 feet below the surface of the ground, supposedly making this doll 12 million years old. In 1912, in the city of Thomas, Oklahoma, in the middle of a mid-Pennsylvania aged anthracite coal seam, a small black iron pot was found. According to evolutionists, the coal seam was 300 million supposed years old. In Utah, a fossil hunter found the matching top and bottom pieces of a fossil showing a number 9 1/2 man’s sandal or moccasin print crushing to death two baby Trilobites.

According to evolutionists, the rock is Cambrian Limestone supposedly 500 to 600 million years ago. Near Glen Rose, Texas, a metal hammer head with a wooden handle attached has been found in a layer of sedimentary rock that evolutionists insist is 400 to 500 million years old.

These findings clearly refute the claim by evolutionists that humans evolved from apes four million supposed years ago in East Central Africa.

- See more at: http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=53#sthash.gu4Fa9nx.HAmiWriR.dpuf

Proof #3—Evolutionists Claim That Homology “Proves” Evolution. Does It?

The study of similar structures is called Homology. The evolutionists claim that random chance has produced similar structures by the inherent ability of matter to achieve optimum design without an outside guiding force. The evolutionists think that the existence of similar structures is caused by common heritage, a common ancestor. The structure of a man’s hand, a bat’s wing, a whale’s flipper and a horse’s leg are indeed similar. This would also be expected if creation were true. The study of molecular homology does not show, as so often claimed by the liberal media, a 96 to 99% similarity between the genetic structure of apes and humans. In reality the whole DNA of ape and man is not nearly that close.

According to the prestigious evolutionist magazine Nature, September, 2005, and only considering the genes and not all the intergenic components of the genomes of apes and humans (they are only comparing 3% of the total information in the genomes), there is only an 83% similarity of genes between apes and humans. Even more troublesome for evolutionists, apes only produce 29% the same proteins as humans, while 71% of the proteins are different.

To make matters worse for evolutionists, using “their” chosen method of determining genetic similarity between apes and humans; people are 50% the same as bananas, 88% the same as rats, 60% the same as chickens, and 88% the same as Sea-squirts. Using the evolutionists’ chosen method of genetic comparison, who does this make us closer to?

A similar study of Cytochrome C, a universal protein needed for aerobic respiration, clearly shows that every life form is unique, different and unrelated to any other life forms.

The argument from Homology was initially a creationist argument which proponents said that the existence of similar structures showed a common designer not a common ancestry. Designed complex structures and systems do not occur by random chance. When many different engineers are given a design problem and a common goal of finding the “best” design, they will all head in the direction of the same optimum design. Examples of common optimum design are everywhere, for example; cars and ladders.

The similarity of structural appearance between ape and man does not indicate spiritual equivalence. What we do see in nature is a convergence upon a common design. The structural engineering term is “the conservation of engineering design from common desired end function.” Apes and men have a similar design probably because God had similar body function in mind. God had perfect designs and He simply used them in many awe-inspiring variations.

- See more at: http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=53#sthash.gu4Fa9nx.3edVVHWU.dpuf

Proof #4—Evolutionists Claim That Ranking "Proves" Evolution. Does It?

Evolutionists claim that "ranking," the ability to place things in a logical order or sequence by size or shape, proves that evolution is true. Classic illustrations of this technique include the "Horse Series" and "The Road To Man" presentations. The proof method of "ranking," however, is the second worst method of proof in all of science.

The "Horse Series" was thrown out decades ago and no self-respecting evolutionist would claim it to be true today. Eohippus is now classified as a form of Rock Badger. Eohippus and Equus remains have been found within the same sedimentary rock layer, proving that they lived at the same time.

What does ranking prove? If I line up a room full of people using only their height as the guide for where they belong in the line, what have I proven? I have only proved that people come in different heights and that I have the ability and intelligence to arrange them by height. If I line up a room full of people only by their birth month and day only (not year), what have I proven? I have proven that people are born on different days of the year and that I have the ability and intelligence to arrange them by the month and day of their birth.

Ranking proves nothing about the relationship between any two people in either scenario. I have proven nothing about their heritage. I have not proven that any two of them are related in anyway. I have not proven that any one of them is married to another; that any one of them is a mother, father, son or daughter.

The proof by ranking is a useless method of proof. If I place a unicycle next to bicycle next to motorcycle next to an automobile, did I just prove that unicycles evolved into automobiles? If I place a Sand Dollar next to a Frisbee next to a hubcap next to a wheel, did I just prove that Sand Dollars evolved into wheels? No. I have shown that the “Proof by Ranking” is a totally fallacious argument.

I would also caution anyone to be wary of artists’ renderings as they are dependent upon the preconceived worldview of the artist. For example, while it was later found out that the fossil tooth from what was initially called Nebraska Man had actually come from an extinct species of pig, a drawing was done in 1922 that showed what Nebraska Man, Nebraska Woman, their clothing and tools looked like. If you give the same skull to two different artists, one believes in evolution and the other in creation, the evolutionist might draw a gorilla, but the creationist might draw a human being.

- See more at: http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=53#sthash.gu4Fa9nx.MCqaVLpt.dpuf

Proof #5—Evolutionists Claim That Vestigial And Retrogressive Organs And Structures “Prove” Evolution. Do They?

Evolutionists claim that the existence of so-called "vestigial organs," which are those organs that are supposed to be no longer needed because we have evolved past their usefulness, proves that evolution has occurred. The German anatomist Dr. Robert Wiedersheim, in his book The Structure of Man an Index to His Past History, 1895, listed 186 (86 vestigial and 100 retrogressive) organs or structures in the human body which were either no longer needed or were atrophying from lack of use. A partial list of the organs and structures he claimed to be vestigial or retrogressive includes: the appendix, the coccyx, the little toes, the parathyroid, the thymus, the pituitary, the pineal and wisdom teeth.

Charles Darwin claimed, in his book The Origin of Species (1859 and modified later in 1874), that vestigial organs were essential to the proof for evolution and came either from disuse or natural selection. His premise was that, if a nonfunctional organ was present in a man’s body, and was both present and still functional in a monkey’s body, it showed that man descended from monkeys. He claimed that vestigial organs demonstrated the atrophying of organs which were no longer needed as they had been bypassed by evolutionary progression.

The creationist points out that the argument that these organs are vestigial, actually stifles scientific and medical research and discovery. Science can only deal with the present and is not able to say anything about the non-existence of a function. To assert that an organ is vestigial is equal to an attempt to prove that no function exists for that organ. The correct scientific statement would be that no function has as yet been observed for a particular organ.

Today, all 186 of the organs or structures present on Wiedersheim’s list are known to have one or more specific uses or functions. The first group are those organs which have been incorrectly identified as useless but are now known to have a specific function such as the pineal gland, the pituitary gland and the lachrymal glands. The second group are those organs which are small and have only limited roles such as the wisdom teeth, the small toes and certain veins. The third group are those organs or structures which function only during certain stages in life such as the notochord, the posterior cardinal veins and the ducts of Cuvier. The fourth group are those organs which are developmental "remnants" of the reproductive structures of the opposite sex such as male nipples, male Mullerian ducts and female Wolffian ducts. These structures are not evolutionary remnants; rather they form prior to the sexual differentiation that occurs in the development of the human embryo.

If a true vestigial organ or structure did exist, it could show that it was needed and useful at the time of creation; but, that it is either no longer needed, or that it was "switched off" by some genetic change which was triggered by the environmental changes at the time of the Flood of Noah, or that it does not function because of degrading mutations over time (a by-product of the consequences of human sin).

- See more at: http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=53#sthash.gu4Fa9nx.xah5radk.dpuf

Proof #6—Evolutionists Claim That Embryonic Recapitulation “Proves” Evolution. Does It?

The ardent evolutionist, Dr. Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919), was raised to believe in Christianity. But, after reading Darwin’s The Origin of Species in 1860, he became "Darwin’s Bulldog on the Continent."

Haeckel was responsible for inventing several grand frauds. By 1868 many evolutionists were worried about the lack of evidence for Darwin’s theory. Haeckel decided to manufacture some evidence. He had begun to draw a “family tree” for mankind. He became worried about the large gap at the bottom between living organisms and nonliving materials. To “complete” his chart, he decided to create an entire series of organisms that he called Moneron (plural for Monera).

These were supposed to be the first single cell organisms to have ever evolved into existence in the supposed primordial sea. He said that they were:

“... not composed of any organs at all, but consist entirely of shapeless, simple homogeneous matter … nothing more than a shapeless, mobile, little lump of mucus or slime, consisting of albuminous combination of carbon.”

In 1868, he published over 30 drawings of these creatures complete with their reproductive cycle illustrated. Dr. Thomas Huxley, M.D., “Darwin’s Bulldog in England,” claimed to have discovered the creature alive in the sediments of the North Atlantic. Unfortunately for them, in 1875, the chemist, John Buchanan, proved that what Huxley had claimed to have found was nothing more than amorphous gypsum that had precipitated out of sea-water when it had come into contact with the alcohol in the container in which Huxley had placed the sample.

Haeckel refused to admit the fraud and reprinted the fraudulent drawings in the edition of his book Natural History of Creation in 1883.

Haeckel’s frauds continued with his attempt to prove that the only difference between apes and people was that people could talk. He even went so far as to have an artist, Gabriel Max, draw the nonexistent ape-man Pithecanthropus alalus (speechless ape-man). The evidence for any such creature has never been found, but Haeckel claimed that it was the prehuman that had inhabited Europe.

Haeckel promulgated his most famous fraud called "The Biogenetic Law," or the law of embryonic recapitulation, in his book Natural History of Creation, first published in 1868. This idea is often repeated in a summary statement which says, “ontogeny recapitulates (begets) phylogeny.” This is the idea that the biological development of the individual (Ontogeny) repeats briefly (recapitulates) the evolutionary development of the phylum (phylogeny).

This false concept proposed that in the womb a human baby passes through the various evolutionary stages of previous life forms and is only born human. His idea was that a human baby starts to develop in a fish stage which then passes through an amphibian stage, then a reptilian stage, then a mammalian stage and is only born human.

In his book, The Riddle of the Universe at the Close of the Nineteenth Century, Haeckel wrote:

“When we see that, at a certain stage, the embryos of man and the ape, the dog and the rabbit, the pig and the sheep, though recognizable as higher vertebrates, cannot be distinguished from each other, the fact can only be elucidated by assuming a common parentage.” [Emphasis added]

Charles Darwin believed his disciple’s fraud and continued to claim that the supposed biogenetic law was the single most important evidence for common descent. On page 9 of his book, The Descent of Man, Darwin wrote:

“The [human] embryo itself at a very early period can hardly be distinguished from that of other members of the vertebrate kingdom.” [Emphasis added]

In 1874, Professor Wilhelm His, Sr., uncovered the fraud. Haeckel had stolen the embryonic drawings of two legitimate embryologists, T. L. W. Bischoff (1845) and A. Ecker (1851-1859), and fraudulently changed the drawings to manufacture the evidence for supposed human evolution since he could not support the concept with real anatomical evidence.

In 1909, Haeckel admitted his forgery in writing. In a letter to Münchener Allegemeine Zeitung, ‘an international weekly for Science, Art and Technology’, published on January 9, 1909, Haeckel wrote:

“… a small portion of my embryo-pictures (possibly 6 or 8 in a hundred) are really (in Dr Brass’s [one of his critics] sense of the word) ‘falsified’ - all those, namely, in which the disclosed material for inspection is so incomplete or insufficient that one is compelled in a restoration of a connected development series to fill up the gaps through hypotheses, and to reconstruct the missing members through comparative syntheses. What difficulties this task encounters, and how easily the draughts-man may blunder in it, the embryologist alone can judge.” [Emphasis added]

In an article published in Science magazine, May 15, 1998, Dr. Michael K. Richardson (an evolutionist), wrote:

"The core scientific issue remains unchanged: Haeckel's drawings of 1874 are substantially fabricated. In support of this view, I note that his oldest 'fish' image is made up of bits and pieces from different animals - some of them mythical. It is not unreasonable to characterize this as 'faking.' …
Sadly, it is the discredited 1874 drawings that are used in so many British and American biology textbooks today." [Emphasis added]
M.K. Richardson, Haeckel's Embryos, Science, May 15, 1998.

Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: “Surely the ‘Biogenetic Law’ is as dead as a doornail.”
“Ontogeny and Phylogeny Recapitulated” for the American Scientist, Vol. 76, May-June 1988, p. 273:

No evolutionary embryologist would support Haeckel’s “Biogenetic Law” as being a law or even being a valid idea. However, the promulgation of Haeckel’s fraud has been the justification for many of the evils of this world. His fraud continues to be used by abortionists to convince women that they are only aborting a fish. Adolf Hitler found in Haeckel’s fraud the basis for his racism and killed millions using the so-called Biogenetic Law as his justification.

- See more at: http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=53#sthash.gu4Fa9nx.oQtI29sm.dpuf

Proof #7—Evolutionists Tell Stories about How Evolution “Could” Have Happened and Claim That These Stories “Prove” Evolution. Do They?

Evolutionists make up pretty stories to try and make their theories sound plausible. Here is one example from Charles Darwin’s own writings in an early edition of The Origin of Species, 1859, p. 184. This section was removed from later editions after Darwin was criticized by his fellow evolutionists for obvious reasons:

“In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely opened mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.” [Emphasis added]

Such stories were also contrived by Charles Darwin and Thomas Huxley to promote their views in favor of white supremacy, in support of human racism and in justification of their chauvinistic sexism. In The Descent of Man, 2nd ed., New York; A. L. Burt Co., 1874, p. 178, Darwin wrote:

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes … will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.” [Emphasis added]

On page 326, he continued:

“It is generally admitted that with women the powers of intuition, of rapid perception, and perhaps of imitation, are more strongly marked than in man; but some, at least, of these faculties are characteristic of the lower races, and therefore of a past and lower state of civilization. The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by man attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than woman can attain—whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands.” [Emphasis added]

In echoing Darwin’s sentiments recorded above, Thomas Huxley wrote in his Lay Sermons, Addresses, and Reviews, New York: Appleton, 1871 p. 20:

“No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathous relative has a fair field and no favor, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried on by thoughts and not by bites.” [Emphasis added]

Henry Fairfield Osborn was a disciple of Thomas Huxley. He would eventually become the President of the American Museum of Natural History’s Board of Trustees from 1908 to 1933. He would continue to strongly promote the evolutionary theories and the racism of his mentor. In an article in the Museum’s own magazine, ("The Evolution of Human Races," Natural History, April 1980, p. 129--reprinted from January/February 1926 issue) he wrote:

“The Negroid stock is even more ancient than the Caucasian and Mongolians, as may be proved by an examination not only of the brain, of the hair, of the bodily characteristics ... but of the instincts, the intelligence. The standard of intelligence of the average adult Negro is similar to that of the eleven-year-old-youth of the species Homo sapiens.” [Emphasis added]

There are many other such stories which are promulgated by modern evolutionists. The made-up story that the fossil bearing layers are in “the right order” thus proving evolution is one. The Geological Time Column or Time Scale is contrived by rearranging the layers found around the world and assembling a mythological column. 75 to 80 percent of the earth’s surface is covered by sedimentary rock containing fossils. Yet, 80 to 85 percent of those sedimentary layers do not have even three of the layers shown in the typical school textbook diagram of the Column.

Evolutionists sometimes have a problem swallowing their own stories at times about this myth. Concerning the very method used by evolutionists to “date” their fossil finds, as well as the layers in which they occur, Dr. Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History drew attention to the problem of circular reasoning used by evolutionists in his book, Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria New York: Simon and Schuster, 1985, p. 51-52, with the following statement:

“[Evolutionary] Paleontologists cannot operate this way. There is simply no way simply to look at a fossil and say how old it is unless you know the age of the rocks it comes from. ...”

“And this poses something of a problem: if we date the rocks by their fossils, how can we then turn around and talk about patterns of evolutionary change through time in the fossil record?”

Story-telling can reach its zenith in double-talk. Here is an example from Dr. J. E. O’Rourke writing for the American Journal of Science. ("Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, Vol. 276, January 1976, p. 51.)

"The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning if it insists on using only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales." [Emphasis added]

As a final example of story-telling, let us talk about comets. Anyone may check this out for themselves with the aid of a personal computer. Just buy a program on the solar system. The computer will show you where the comets are at any time - past, present or future. We have never found a short-period comet, defined as a comet with an orbit of less than 200 years, that could exist in orbit around the sun for more than about 10,000 years without being destroyed. If the solar system is more than 10,000 years old, then we should no longer have any comets. The few long-period comets that exist would be destroyed in less than 100,000 years.

What is the evolutionary response to this information? The response comes from a Dutch evolutionary astronomer named Dr. Jan Oort who theorized that there “must” be a cloud of pre-comets located one to one and a half light years out from the sun beyond the orbit of Pluto. As comets are being destroyed in the inner solar system, the gravitational pull of the sun then supposedly causes some of these pre-comets to be pulled out of this “cloud” into the solar system, thus producing a continuous stream of new comets to take the place of the old ones which are continuously being destroyed.

The obvious question would be, “Have we seen the supposed Oort Cloud?” No! No confirmed direct observations of the supposed Oort cloud have ever been made. Evolutionary astronomers only believe it to be the source of all comets entering the inner solar system.

It is only a story made up to placate the problem of only having short-period comets in the solar system.

Such stories have no part in intellectually honest scientific endeavors nor in a Christian Biblical worldview

- See more at: http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=53#sthash.gu4Fa9nx.mRh4YkVG.dpuf

OLAADEGBU:


Here you will find 9 great 'Proofs' for the evolution theory and why they are all false.
http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=53

And they are still false.

OLAADEGBU:

And they are still false.

Stopped reading when I saw 'microevolution'.

CoolUsername:


Stopped reading when I saw 'microevolution'.

Me too.

CoolUsername:


Stopped reading when I saw 'microevolution'.

As if you know the difference between macro and micro evolution.

urahara:



Me too.

Do you have to follow blindly?

OLAADEGBU:


As if you know the difference between macro and micro evolution.

Micro evolution is an obscure term that has been popularized by creationists. It is where they shoehorn all experimental evidence of evolution. There are no defined upper limits for it.

Macro evolution is an unobtainable phenomenon to creationists since they'll just call undeniable evidence of evolution micro evolution.

In reality, evolution is evolution is evolution.

Where are the evolutionists? Let them come and defend their precious theory from this barrage.

it still make more sense than most creation stories

UyiIredia:
Where are the evolutionists? Let them come and defend their precious theory from this barrage.

The fact that you can see this as a "barrage" is testament to your total absence of understanding on this topic.

CoolUsername:


Micro evolution is an obscure term that has been popularized by creationists. It is where they shoehorn all experimental evidence of evolution. There are no defined upper limits for it.

Macro evolution is an unobtainable phenomenon to creationists since they'll just call undeniable evidence of evolution micro evolution.

In reality, evolution is evolution is evolution.

Micro evolution is observable while Macro is not.

OLAADEGBU:

Micro evolution is observable while Macro is not.

What is the upper limit of micro evolution?

OLAADEGBU:


Micro evolution is observable while Macro is not.

i doubt if you know the relationship between Micro and Macro...

Macro is basically made up of micro-bits..

So changes in the micro-level accumulated over a long period shows on the macro level because the more accumulation of the micro-bits the larger it becomes heading to a macro state.

Like Drops of water dripping into a Bucket, it cannot fill the bucket with One drop but with time the continuous drop can and will fill the bucket…

So that is the relationship between Micro and Macro. . Micro is the drop, Macro is the bucket.

So your assertion above is quite laughable though i understand the dire need to protect ones beliefs but at least we should all rethink things before saying it.

Saying Macro-evolution is not observable as it is now because it takes a very Long time to affect, this is like asking a new born baby to turn into a grand ma right before your eyes.

To see it you've got to stick around for the duration needed for the change to take place..

To see drops of water make a river, you'd have to stick around long enough, but it is a Fact that a river can be separated into drops and also drops can make a river with time... That is a FACT not a theory...

so Macro can be broken down into Micro and Micro can be accumulated into Macro.

For the fact you agree on Micro evolution is enough, you recognize evolution as a Fact.

Saying Micro Evolution is true but Macro is not (forget macro is made up micro) is like saying "This water drops into this bucket but it can never fill this bucket"

Yes it can only with time...

You are only a tiny creature experiencing a very miniscule existence with a miniscule time limit, you surely cannot even notice the simple geometrical curvature of the earth talk more of a consistent accumulation of micro-bits into Macro in a span of millions of years.

I have noticed when religions argue against science it is always done with an Ignorant Mind or maybe willful cognitive dissonance..

- For everyone here, Do not argue with someone over a scientific thesis, First thing you should do is not ask them if they agree with it or not, or argue with them.

simply ask If they understand it That is where the problem lies.

Intellectual dishonesty to protect dearly held personal belief systems Or Plain Cognitive Laziness

CoolUsername:


What is the upper limit of micro evolution?

"Microevolution" will never produce macroevolution - it is a fantasy in the evolutionists' mind.

johnydon22:


i doubt if you know the relationship between Micro and Macro...

Macro is basically made up of micro-bits..

So changes in the micro-level accumulated over a long period shows on the macro level because the more accumulation of the micro-bits the larger it becomes heading to a macro state.

Like Drops of water dripping into a Bucket, it cannot fill the bucket with One drop but with time the continuous drop can and will fill the bucket…

So that is the relationship between Micro and Macro. . Micro is the drop, Macro is the bucket.

So your assertion above is quite laughable though i understand the dire need to protect ones beliefs but at least we should all rethink things before saying it.

Saying Macro-evolution is not observable as it is now because it takes a very Long time to affect, this is like asking a new born baby to turn into a grand ma right before your eyes.

To see it you've got to stick around for the duration needed for the change to take place..

To see drops of water make a river, you'd have to stick around long enough, but it is a Fact that a river can be separated into drops and also drops can make a river with time... That is a FACT not a theory...

so Macro can be broken down into Micro and Micro can be accumulated into Macro.

For the fact you agree on Micro evolution is enough, you recognize evolution as a Fact.

Saying Micro Evolution is true but Macro is not (forget macro is made up micro) is like saying "This water drops into this bucket but it can never fill this bucket"

Yes it can only with time...

You are only a tiny creature experiencing a very miniscule existence with a miniscule time limit, you surely cannot even notice the simple geometrical curvature of the earth talk more of a consistent accumulation of micro-bits into Macro in a span of millions of years.

I have noticed when religions argue against science it is always done with an Ignorant Mind or maybe willful cognitive dissonance..

- For everyone here, Do not argue with someone over a scientific thesis, First thing you should do is not ask them if they agree with it or not, or argue with them.

simply ask If they understand it That is where the problem lies.

Intellectual dishonesty to protect dearly held personal belief systems Or Plain Cognitive Laziness

This is what is called fairytales for adults. I know that you evolutionists believe that small changes in genetic materials will ultimately produce the presumed large changes necessary for one biological organism to change into a different kind of biological organism which you commonly refer to as macroevolution but this belief is false it is not scientific.

Scientifically, what you call microevolution is basically mutations and mutations are copying errors of previously existing information contained in the DNA. A mutation is a structural change in the hereditary material which makes the offspring different from its parents. Mutations do not create new organs, they do not build upon another beneficially but they overwhelmingly lose information, they do not gain it, therefore, mutations cause changes which are contrary to your evolutionary beliefs that say that they go on to produce macroevolution.

ValentineMary:


That's what I tell people whi want to argue evolution. I first ask them if they understand it. If they don't, it would be rubbish to them. It's like I write a piece of java code and give it to a 5 year old. Obviously it would make no sense to him. So I don't argue with such people, I educate them.

If you understood what you are talking about you would have realised that lateral adaptation is a far better term than your so called microevolution which is not evolution according to your religious belief.

OLAADEGBU:


"Microevolution" will never produce macroevolution - it is a fantasy in the evolutionists' mind.

Answer the question.

CoolUsername:


Answer the question.

Your so called upper limit is a dead end. Read the article in the suggested link to see why mutations can not be the mechanism for macroevolution.

http://www.icr.org/article/270/285

OLAADEGBU:


Your so called upper limit is a dead end. Read the article in the suggested link to see why mutations can not be the mechanism for macroevolution.

http://www.icr.org/article/270/285

So where do they meet this dead end? You creationists like to skirt this question. How much change would we need to see to say 'This isn't microevlution but macroevlution'.
Unless you can come up with that, your point is undisprovable, and hence unscientific.

CoolUsername:


So where do they meet this dead end? You creationists like to skirt this question. How much change would we need to see to say 'This isn't microevlution but macroevlution'.
Unless you can come up with that, your point is undisprovable, and hence unscientific.

Mutations do not build one upon another beneficially because they lose information, they do not gain information. The changes caused by mutations are different from the evolutionary concept. The laws of Genetics are conservative and not creative.