More Arguments Against Evolution

More Arguments Against Evolution

Author: Curt Sewell
Subject: Creation Overviews
Date: 11/2/1999


Many people have a nominal belief in evolution, because that’s what they’ve been taught in school, they see references on TV, they read stories in newspapers, etc. Most people have been brainwashed to think that “all the knowledgable scientists believe it, so it must be true.” But these are not scientific reasons — these are more philosophical — often an unthinking “follow the leader” game. In this article, we’ll look at some of the real evidences that cast doubt on the reliability of evolutionary teaching.


These are probably the most common evidences that we hear about. Many species have become extinct, but in order to show evolution there must be transitional fossils. Most paleontologists now agree that none have been found above the “Family” level, and most of them admit that this disproves Darwinism. Let’s look at some famous fossils.

  1. A) Neanderthal Man — is now accepted as a genuine human.
  2. B) Cro-Magnon Man — is now accepted as a genuine human.
  3. C) Piltdown Man — has been proven to be a deliberate hoax.
  4. D) Java Man — has been proven to be a deliberate hoax.
  5. E) Nebraska Man — has been proven to be an over-optimistic mistake.
  6. F) Peking Man — probably was a hoax. The bones have been lost.
  7. G)Zinjanthropus– studies show this was only a primitive ape.
  8. H) “Lucy” — strongly suspected of having been fully ape.
  9. I) Archaeopteryx — Some evidence shows sign of a hoax. There have also been fully modern birds found in earlier strata. Stephen J. Gould says it’s a “curious mosaic,” not a transitional fossil.
  10. J) Coelacanth — This was used as an index fossil for comparison dating until living specimens were found in the Indian Ocean. It is now called a “living fossil.”
  11. K) Horse Series — This collection of unrelated fossils was put together to look like a series, and is still shown in many elementary textbooks, even though there’s no relationship between them. Dr. NilesEldredge, curator at the American Museum of Natural History where this was displayed, said it is “lamentable” that this is still shown in textbooks by people “who know of its speculative nature.”


Evolutionists often say that changes in form which adapt to environmental changes (the peppered moth, for example) show microevolution. But genetics shows they can’t change to anything that wasn’t already present in their genes. Plant and animal breeders know that there is a fixed limit to any change they can induce. Horizontal change isn’t evolution; that would require an upward increase in complexity.


The only mechanism ever proposed, as to how evolution could possibly occur, involves mutations. Yet everyone agrees that almost all mutations are harmful, often fatal. The probability for a long series of favorable mutations to happen sequentially is vanishingly small.


Scientists have conducted long studies using mutations in fruitflies, since they have very short gestation periods, and lend themselves to lab studies. They’ve introduced all kinds of mutations, and observed the results through many generations. Their results have shown that, in almost every case, the results have been damaging, never resulting in an improved fruitfly. In many cases, the mutated fly has been sterile, not able to reproduce, and often it had an early death. These studies have effectively disproved mutation-based improvement.


Evolutionists say that mutations caused the bat to evolve in many tiny steps from a mouse-like shrew, over millions of years. They say the skin behind the forelegs gradually enlarged and formed “wing” surfaces. But if this were so, how could this creature have survived during the awkward half-developed stages, when it could neither fly nor run well?

Even more difficult to explain is the very complicated sonar system of the bat. If it had evolved from a shrew, that complete system must have developed simultaneously with the wings. It wouldn’t have had any survival value until its development was complete, yet the bat couldn’t fly without this complete functioning system. As a final proof, bat fossils indistinguishable from modern have been found in very ancient strata.


According to evolution theory, the first step in life’s development was formation of life-like chemical molecules, which later combined into complex molecules like DNA. This presumably took place in the early oceans; it’s sometimes called “chemical evolution of life from a primordial soup.” But the likelihood of destructive reactions is much higher than that for favorable combinations, so the probability for a long series of favorable reactions causing any DNA-style molecules is almost zero. In their book The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, Thaxton, Bradley and Olsen call this “the myth of the prebiotic soup.”


Evolutionists say that similarities in design (similar bone structure of mammal’s legs, bird’s wings, etc.) show common ancestry. Creationists say that these show the hand of a common creator. This argument carries almost equal weight for both sides. It’s a matter of choice. In any case, if there were any truth in homologous structures showing common ancestry, those homologies should be controlled by homologous genes, and micro-biologists have found that this is not the case. The argument from homology is thus fatally flawed.


At one time it was argued that the 150 or so organs thought to be vestigial (that is, once useful for a previous stage of evolution, but now no longer needed), indicated life had evolved from more primitive forms. For example, our tonsils, appendixes, “tailbones,” etc. were once thought to be useless for humans. But there are now less than a dozen such organs for which the function is not known. It’s now concluded “there’s no such thing as vestigial organs.” But we still see them sometimes mentioned in textbooks.


We still often hear that a fetus, while developing in the womb, goes through stages of development of previous life-forms — tail, gill-slits, etc. Over 50 years ago, this was proven to be a deliberate hoax, done by Dr. Ernst Haekel, who faked pictures of embryos in his book. Embryonic recapitulation is now a well-known hoax, yet it’s still shown in many elementary biology textbooks as a proof for evolution, and used as a justification for abortion — “it’s not a baby, it’s just a mass of tissue.”

Shopping cart0
There are no products in the cart!
Continue shopping