13 INDICATORS THAT EVOLUTION COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED
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.
Many dozens of "proofs" that evolution never happened
have been put forth by creation scientists; none
appear valid. These indicators have been well
circulated among scientists; all have been rejected.
If such a proof existed, it would be the discovery of
the century! It would disprove the entire structure of
biological evolution which has been laboriously pieced
together over the past century. The 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," no scientist has ever
come forward and published a proof in a peer-reviewed
We receive many E-mails which contain "proofs" that
evolution is a false theory. After investigation, none
seem to be convincing. If you believe that you have
one, please Email us.
All of the "proofs" listed below are paraphrased from
the original Emails.
Human footprints found inside of dinosaur footprints
Evolution has never been observed
Evolution would cause all land animals to be like
Growth rate of human societies
Neanderthals didn't exist
Cro-Magnon vs. Homo Sapiens brain capacity
Fossils of extinct proto-humans
Long "extinct" Agraptalyte fish found
Transitional species missing from the fossil record
Survival of previous species
The genome cannot increase in complexity;
microevolution vs. macroevolution
Organic material cannot come from inorganic; thus
evolution could not have started up.
Second law of thermodynamics:
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
a web page 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
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
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
archeological 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.
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
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
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.
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." 11 Evolution teaches the
opposite: that entropy decreases and complexity and
order increases. Evolution is impossible because it
violates the universally accepted second law of
Rebuttal 14: Creation Scientists often do not quote
the full text of the Second Law. In fact, Morris'
conclusion is incorrect. All processes do not exhibit
a tendency towards decay and disintegration. It is
only the overall entropy of a closed system which
decreases. "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 forbits 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."
12 There 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 on earth was/is made possible by the rise in
entropy in the sun. Talk.Origins has a full treatment
of this topic online. 13
"The Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" Controversy" at:
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.
"Talk Origins" has a listing of other web sites which
review creationist "proofs" at:
Jason Rosenhouse, "The design detectives," Skeptic
magazine, Vol. 8 # 4, 2001, Page 59 to 64.
"Spontaneous Generation," at:
http://www.fwkc.com/encyclopedia/ The page is no
Louis Pasteur, "On the Organized Particles Existing in
the Air, (1862).
"Essays from our Physical World," at:
Henry Morris, "The remarkable birth of planet earth,"
Page 14. Out of print. Read reviews or try to get a
used copy safely from Amazon.com online book store
K.R. Miller, "Finding Darwin's God," Cliff Street
Books, (1999). Page 300. Read reviews or order this
book safely from Amazon.com online book store
Frank Steiger, "The second law of thermodynamics,
evolution and probability," Talk.Origins Archive at:
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
- These questions focus on the creationist claim of a world wild
Why are moles and modern birds found in layers millions of years
above large flying reptiles ?
How is it possible to have 9,000 years of tree rings and 40,000
years of ice cores that show no sign of a flood ? What type of world
wide flood leaves trees unaffected ?
Why are non-flowering plants below flowering plants ?
Why are many modern plants absent in the lower layers ?
Why are modern coral reefs consistently above stromatolitic and
other reef types ?
Why aren't human artefacts found in the lower levels ? Did the
stone tools run for the hills too ?
Why are there animal tracks found on adjacent layers of alleged
flood sediment ?
Why are there animal burrows in virtually every layer of alleged
flood sediment ?
How did meteorites make dry land craters during the flood ?
Why are hominids always found far above the K-T boundary and
dinosaurs always near or below it ?
How come we have 100's alleles today when Noah's crew had no more
than 16 ?
How did animals get back to their proper location even on
different continents after the flood ? Please discuss mammals ---
Marsupials getting to Australia, polar bears to the arctic and
Panda's to China as wells as turtles, snakes, insects making it back
to their location specific destination.