Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

13 Indicators

Expand Messages
  • Steve Hallam
    http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_noway.htm 13 INDICATORS THAT EVOLUTION COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED (WITH REBUTTALS) Almost all scientists believe that
    Message 1 of 52 , Sep 1, 2002


      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.

      Some indicators:
      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
      Pre-human fossils
      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
      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
      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
      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.

      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.
      Creationism" at:
      "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
      longer accessible.
      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
    • tinroad66
      These questions focus on the creationist claim of a world wild flood. ... Why are moles and modern birds found in layers millions of years above large flying
      Message 52 of 52 , Aug 9, 2003
        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.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.