Almost all scientists believe that evolution is a fact -- that species
evolved over a long period of time. Only
about 5% of all scientists
argue for the creation of all present-day species (and of all the species seen only
in fossils) in one week, about 4000 to 8000 BCE. This small minority of
scientists are
almost entirely Evangelical Christians who believe in the inerrancy
of the Bible, literally interpreted. Among those scientists who specialize in
biology or geology, the percentage of believers in creation of a young earth
drops to less than 1%.
Many dozens of "proofs" that evolution never happened have been put forth by
creation scientists. These indicators have been well circulated among
scientists; all have been easily refuted by them. If such a proof existed, it would be
the discovery of the century! It would disprove the entire structure of evolution
-- of the earth itself, of its life forms and of the rest of the universe. This
structure has been laboriously pieced together over more than a
century. Any scientist who was able to disprove evolution would be a shoo-in for the next Nobel
Prize, and would receive world-wide fame. It seems obvious that very few scientists could
resist such fame and economic rewards; he or she would publish an article
immediately and wait by the phone for the Nobel Prize committee to call. But, although tens
or hundreds of thousands of scientists are familiar with these
"proofs" by creation scientists, no scientist has ever come forward and published a proof in
a peer-reviewed journal.
We receive many
E-mails which contain "proofs" that evolution is a false theory. After
investigation, all seem to be based on misunderstandings of generally accepted
scientific beliefs. If
you believe that you have one, please Email us.
All of the "proofs" listed below are paraphrased from the original Emails.
Indicator 1: Human footprints have been found beside dinosaur footprints in the
Paluxy riverbed in Texas. This indicates that humans and dinosaurs lived on earth at the
same time. But the theory of evolution shows that the first man evolved tens of millions
of years after the last dinosaur died.
Rebuttal: If human and dinosaur footprints were actually found together, a major
shock would be made to the theory of evolution. According to paleontologists, the last
dinosaur died over 60 million years before the first human took a step. There are numerous
locations where dinosaur and human footprints seem to be together. In some locations, the
human footprints appear to be inside the dinosaurs' prints. In the Texas case, some of the
"human" footprints are in reality tridactyl dinosaur tracks that have been
partially filled in by natural processes. Others are simple hoaxes. Glen J. Kuban has
written a series of essays devoted to this topic. 1
Indicator 2: Scientists have never observed the evolution of one species into another
species. Every species on earth produces only copies of itself, never a new species.
Rebuttal: Several "speciation events" have been demonstrated from
direct observation. The evolution of a new species of fruit flies has been
observed in the laboratory 2 Evolution of a
new species of fish from the Tilapia fish in East African lakes has been
studied in the wild. 3,4
Indicator 3: Evolution claims that early species of giraffes had short necks - some
longer than others. Individuals with longer necks were able to better reach the leaves on
the trees for food. Neck length had survival value, and so all giraffes eventually ended
up with long necks. Using this belief, evolution would predict that all species of
land animals would end up with long necks. So, evolution is wrong.
Rebuttal: Long necks were only an advantage to animals that fitted into a
specific niche: eating the leaves on the top of the trees while standing on the ground.
They evolved into that niche and function quite well. Other animals evolved in different
directions and developed their own methods of feeding.
Indicator 4: The current growth rate among human beings is 2% per year. Assume that
the yearly growth rate was only 0.2% in the past. [To use a lower value would benefit the
Evolution theory, because it would indicate that humans have been on earth for a longer
period.] Assuming 5 billion humans today, a 0.2% annual growth rate would mean that there
were 112 million on earth when Jesus was born, 2 million in 2000 BCE, 38,000 in 4000 BCE,
700 in 6000 BCE but only 13 humans in 8000 BCE. That checks out with a Genesis view of the
earth's history, but not with the theory of evolution which says that homo sapiens have
been around for hundreds of thousands of years.
Rebuttal: The idea of a constant growth rate is nonsensical. If a male and
female were transported to a deserted island, in an age before birth control when the
average woman had, conservatively 6 children, then the population would increase by about
a factor of 3 each generation. Two people would become 6 after 25 years, 18 after 50
years, 54 after 75 years and about 150 after 100 years. Somewhere along the line,
depending on the size of the island, the food resources would become strained and
inadequate to supporting the population. The total number of individuals would stabilize,
and remain at that level. An environmental catastrophe, (as in the case of Easter Island)
might cause the human population to plummet. Or better technology (fishing in boats,
agriculture etc.) would produce more food and allow more humans to be supported. What is
true on the small scale of an island is true of the whole earth itself. Prior to the
distribution of birth control devices and techniques, people had no effective method of
limiting their fertility, and so a tribe would quickly increase in numbers until they ran
out of food.
Indicator 5:S.H. Huse's book "The Collapse of Evolution" talks
about many fossils that were believed to be pre-humans, but did not pan out. Heidelberg
man, Nebraska man, Piltdown man all were eventually shown to be other than predecessors of
homo sapiens.
Rebuttal: These are cases of the scientific method working as it
should. Some investigator believed that he/she has found a fossil that will tell us of our
origins. Other scientists look at the data and decide that it is without value.
Occasionally, one of these "finds" pans out. The data becomes generally
accepted, and our knowledge of evolution increases. But there are countless blind alleys
for each important discovery.
Indicator 6: Dr. A.J.E. Cave gave a paper at the International Congress
of Zoology in 1958 in which he concluded that a skeleton found in France was not an
Neanderthal but was of an elderly human who suffered from arthritis. The implication is
that Neanderthals never existed.
Rebuttal: Neanderthal and homo sapiens' skeleton look somewhat alike.
But many dozens of Neanderthal fossils have been found. Even if Dr. Cave's conclusions are
confirmed by other scientists, then there are still plenty of "real"
Neanderthals around which prove that the species did exist.
Indicator 7: The Cro-Magnon's brain capacity is at least equal to
Homo Sapiens. The implication is that homo-sapiens has not evolved from the Cro-Magnon.
Rebuttal: Current thinking among most evolutionary
biologists is that Homo Sapiens did not descend from Cro-Magnons. Rather,
Cro-Magnons were a collateral branch that died out.
Even if we assume that humans descended from Cro-Magnons, your
reasoning is not valid. The term "brain capacity" refers to an estimate of
the brain size based on the internal volume of the skull. It is not a measure of
the Cro-Magnon's thinking capacity. The Neanderthals had big brains also, but
archaeological evidence indicates that they were constructed differently from homo-sapiens'
brains; their internal wiring was
different. They lacked our ability to visualize, to plan ahead, etc.
Indicator 8: If homo-sapiens evolved from extinct proto-humans, then why
is it so difficult to find skeletons of these species?
Rebuttal: Fossils are actually quite rare. When animals die,
they are usually consumed by their internal bacteria and by external scavenging
animals. Essentially all bodies will rot
and disappear. Only under very unusual circumstances will a body be preserved long enough
to be converted into a fossil.
Sponsored link:
Indicator 9:Agraptalyte fossils are supposed to be millions of
year old index fossils, except that a number of them were found, still
alive, in the South Pacific three years ago!
Rebuttal: An index fossil is generally the fossil of a
species that is believed to have emerged at a certain time, and which
became extinct at a more recent, known time. Thus the rock that it is
imbedded in can be roughly dated if the fossil is present. But this
assumes that the species actually became extinct at the time estimated.
All scientists had to go on was a complete absence of members of the
species in the fossil record. In this case, the species apparently did
survive, and may even have produced a few fossils. However, scientists
were not sufficiently lucky to run across one of them. There are many
cases on record where species were recently declared extinct because they
hadn't been seen in decades. And then, more decades later, a member of the
species is found. The Agraptalyte fossil in no way falsifies the theory of
evolution. It merely corrects the record of one species in the
evolutionary record.
Indicator 10:If one species were to evolve into another, one
would expect that it would do so in many small, incremental steps. Thus,
many transition fossils would have been found by now. But, in fact, very
few have been discovered.
Rebuttal 10: Charles Darwin originally believed that evolution
was a gradual phenomenon. In fact, he wrote that if transitional fossils
were not found, that his conclusion about a slowly advancing evolution
would be false. Stephen Gould has proposed the concept of punctuated
equilibrium: the idea that species were relatively fixed over long periods
of time; transition from one species to another happened relatively
quickly. Thus, transitional fossils would be extremely rare. He believes
that speciation generally occurs rapidly in small, isolated populations of
a species. Thus, surviving transitional fossils would be expected to be
almost non-existent.
Indicator 11: If humans evolved from apes,
then one would expect that there would be no apes left on earth; all would
have evolved into humans.
Rebuttal 11: Scientists have been trying to explain for over a
century that humans did not evolve from apes. Rather, humans and apes
share an ancient, common ancestor. Unfortunately, there are still some
promoters of creation science that are spreading confusion by
misrepresenting the theory of evolution.
It is generally believed by life scientists that new species develop
out of isolated colonies of an existing species. For examples, an isolated
colony of the human-ape common ancestor could have become separated from
the main body of common ancestors. Genetic mutations happened which
changed the colony in the direction of "humanness". This had
survival value. Perhaps the change was a higher intelligence, which came
in handy because the colony's environment was more challenging. A new
species was born which further evolved into modern man over an interval of
millions of years. Meanwhile another isolated colony of human-ape common
ancestors also become isolated. Genetic mutations happened which changed
the inhabitants in the direction of "apeness." For them, this
had survival value. Perhaps the change made them more effective tree
climbers, which came in handy because they happened to live in a more
densely forested area. They also evolved further into apes.
In short, humans and apes are still around because each has found its
own niche where it survives better than its competitors.
Indicator 12: If our ancestors who lived, say, 80
million years ago were small mammals, then the human genome must be much larger
and more complex than the genome of our ancestors, back in the age of the
dinosaurs. But William Dembski's book "Intelligent Design" and Phillip
Johnson's book "The Wedge of Truth" both explain that there is no
possible mechanism by which the genome can increase in complexity; its total
information content is fixed. Thus, natural selection can produce microevolution
-- small changes with in a species. But, it cannot produce macroevolution --
major changes from one species to another.
Rebuttal 12: This is a suggestion that cuts to the heart of evolution,
so we will discuss it in greater detail. The two authors cited above write that
natural selection can only work by one of two processes:
Point mutations: the change of one DNA base for another.
Genetic recombinations: a reorganization of existing genetic
material into a different pattern.
The authors say that neither path can leads to an increase in complexity of
the genome, such as is necessary for evolution. Some form of supernatural entity
must have designed a new genome for each species. However, the authors have
ignored two other processes. Both are observed in nature. Both lead to an
increase in the genome's complexity:
Genetic duplication: Normally, genes replicate -- make exact
copies of themselves. But genes can occasionally duplicate themselves so
that a daughter cell ends up with "two copies of a gene sequence that
appeared only once in the parent cell." 7
Polyploidy: Here, gene replication takes place without the cell
dividing.
These two copies [of a single gene] are then free to diverge, via
mutation, resulting in a daughter genome with a greater information content than
a parental genome...Gene duplication and its effects on the size of the genome
are discussed by Julian Huxley in his 1942 book "Evolution: The modern
synthesis"...almost every book that discusses both evolution and genetics
discuss [sic] this topic." 7 One is forced to conclude
that either:
These authors are unfamiliar with the basics of their specialty -- a
very difficult idea to accept -- or,
That they are aware of these methods of duplication but choose to
pretend that they do not exist in order to lead their readers down the
garden path -- another difficult concept to accept.
Indicator 13: A group of scientists proved in 1836
that spontaneous generation does not occur. Spontaneous generation or
abiogenesis is an "ancient theory holding that certain lower forms of life,
especially the insects, reproduced by physicochemical agencies from inorganic
substances." 8 i.e. that living matter came from
non-living matter. Since this cannot happen, it is impossible for an elementary
life form to appear on a lifeless earth. Thus, evolution of the species cannot
even get started.
Rebuttal 13: Actually, it was a series of scientists, from Redi in
1668 to Franz Schulze in 1836 who did the preliminary work to disprove abiogenesis.
It was not until Louis Pasteur's more sophisticated experiments in 1861 that the
theory was finally laid to rest. 9 But the studies only proved
that, over a period of perhaps several months, sterile broth which is isolated
from bacteria and dust in the air, will remain sterile. No bacteria will be
spontaneously generated inside the broth and multiply. The main fallacy here is
that the time interval from the coalescing of the earth to the appearance of the
first primitive life forms took about 1 billion years. A lot of developments can
occur in a billion years that are not possible in a few weeks.
"All living organisms on our planet are made of carbon, C, hydrogen, H,
nitrogen, N, and oxygen, O. Living organisms also contain phosphorous, P,
sulfur, S, and other metals and nonmetals. DNA contains carbon, hydrogen,
oxygen, nitrogen and phosphorous." 10 All of these
elements were present on the primitive earth 3.5 billion years ago. The
challenge facing scientists is to try to figure out how these elements came
together as the first simple life form. amino acids (building blocks of life)
can be created from simple chemicals believed to be common on Earth 3+ billion
years ago. Some progress has been made in this direction. In 1953, Stanley L.
Miller and Harold C. Urey, working at the University of Chicago, conducted what
is now called the "Miller-Urey Experiment." They attempted to recreate
the atmosphere of the early earth (methane, ammonia, and hydrogen), placed the
gasses in a glass vessel along with water to simulate the oceans. They used
electrical sparks to simulate lightning discharges. At the time, scientists had
estimated that the chances of molecules like amino acids forming was so remote
as to be impossible. The experiment was a success. About 12% of the carbon had
formed organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed amino acids, the
building blocks of proteins. Amino acids are not forms of life. However, the
experiment proved that simple base elements can spontaneously generate amino
acids. A lot of work needs to be done before scientists will be able to figure
out how life came into existence; it will take decades. 14.15
Indicator 14: Second law of thermodynamics: Henry
Morris wrote: "All processes manifest a tendency toward decay and
disintegration, with a net increase in what is called the entropy, or state
of randomness or disorder, of the system. This is called the Second Law of
Thermodynamics." 11Evolution teaches the opposite: that entropy decreases and complexity
and order increases. Evolution is impossible because it violates the
universally accepted second law of thermodynamics.
Rebuttal 14: Creation Scientists often
do not quote the full text of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. In fact, Morris' conclusion is
incorrect. All processes do not exhibit a tendency towards decay and
disintegration. It is only the overall entropy (disorder) of the universe which
increases. "This means that some parts of a system may indeed become more
orderly and complex so long as this increase in order is balanced by an
equal or greater decrease in order elsewhere. This, of course, is exactly
what living things do -- as they grow and evolve they use enormous amounts
of energy (usually in the form of food), producing a thermodynamic balance
in the system as a whole. The second law no more forbids evolution than it
forbids a tiny seed from growing into a larger, more complex tree. Both
processes require energy to proceed, and both are in perfect accordance with
the laws of thermodynamics." 12There are many examples on earth in which entropy decreases and order
increases:
The formation of snowflakes.
Formation of salt crystals.
Seeds becoming plants.
Eggs becoming Chickens.
Evolution of species of life is one more example. Evolution of plant and
animal species on earth
was and is made possible by the rise in entropy in the sun. That is, the
heat and illumination from the sun makes life on earth possible; it makes it
possible for seeds to grow into trees, and for simple organisms to evolve
into more complex species. But the sun can only accomplish this by gradually
running down. Billions of years from now, the sun's entropy will win out and
the sun will fail. Talk.Origins
has a full treatment of this topic online. 13
Indicator 15: The full geological column is not present
anywhere: If evolution of the species really happened, then there should be
evidence of it in the rocks. Why is it that there is no place on earth where
the complete geologic column appears?
Rebuttal 15: Partial examples of the geological column appears all over the earth.
The column is made from sediment and thus is only
formed while the land is under water. There is no place on earth where the land has
been under water for 3.5 billion years continuously. Thus, you will not find the
entire geological column at any one location.
Indicator 16: Inter-species mating: If all species
have evolved from one original life form, then why can't a dog mate with a cat and produce
offspring with the features of both dogs and cats? Rebuttal 16:
A dog is a dog, a cat is a cat and a human is a human because of their DNA. DNA is
continually changing from generation to generation. In some cases, there will be
a small group of a particular species isolated from the rest of the species.
Their DNA mutate in successive generations.
If the group undergoes some form of environmental stress (e.g. very dry weather; high
temperature, etc) then they may well become better survivors because
of their different DNA. They will flourish in numbers. If they become sufficiently different from the original
group, then they have become a new species whose DNA is sufficiently different
from the original species. They will be able to mate with each other and produce
fertile offspring, but will not be able to mate with the original species. This
sequence by which a new species evolves has been observed among fruit flies in
the laboratory and among species of fish in some African lakes.
Indicator 17: Lack of proof: Why is it that scientists have studied and studied trying to prove evolution
and then finally realize it can't be done.
Rebuttal 17: I think that you have been fed some misinformation.
The scientists who investigate evolution are mostly biologists and geologists.
The goal of any scientist is to develop a new theory, or to find evidence to
overthrow an existing theory. If one of these scientists found a proof that
evolution did not actually happen, then their discovery would be the most
important of the past few centuries. They would be a shoo-in for a Nobel prize.
If there were such a proof, one would have been found by now and the scientist(s)
involved would have rushed their proof to publication. But it hasn't happened.
In excess of 99.9% of biologists and geologists believe that evolution happened
and that the earth is very old -- on the order of 4.5 billion years. This number
is the best proof that all of the 80 or so popular "proofs" that evolution never
happened are without scientific merit.
T. Dobzhansky, & O. Pavlovsky, "An experimentally created incipient species
of Drosophilia", Nature 23, P. 289-292 (1971)
J.P. Franck, et. al., "Evolution of a satellite DNA family in
tilapia." Annual Meeting Canadian Federation of Biological
Societies. Halifax, (1990).
M. Losseau-Hoebeke, "The biology of four haplochromine species of
Lake Kivu (Zaire) with evolutionary implications." Thesis, Dept
Ichthyology, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, (1992).
Mark I. Vuletic maintains an impressive list of "Frequently Encountered
Criticisms in Evolution vs. Creationism" at: http://www2.uic.edu/~vuletic/cefec.html
Sean Henahan, "From Primordial Soup to the Prebiotic Beach: An
interview with exobiology pioneer, Dr. Stanley L. Miller, University of
California San Diego," The National Health Museum, at:
http://www.accessexcellence.org/
