The Evidence for Evolution

I think we would all agree that pigs can’t fly. Not only has a pig never been observed flying, but physiological evidence proves that it can’t possibly happen. In the previous page we discussed the scientific law that life cannot come from non-life. Not only has life never been observed to come from non-life, but statistically speaking it can’t possibly happen. Because we know pigs can’t fly, we don’t spend time theorizing about their migration patterns. However, although proponents of evolution have no workable theory for the origin of life, billions of dollars are spent researching and teaching theories about the evolution of life (that man evolved from monkeys and that birds evolved from dinosaurs).

In my humble opinion, there are two primary reasons people believe in evolution:

1. They want to believe it because it removes their accountability to a creator God (athiesm)
2. They have been convinced it is true (through the use of surface-level evidence and dogmatic repetition by the media, high school and college curricula, “scientific” magazines, etc.)

Despite the lack of actual evidence, the evolutionary community has done an impressive job of providing a believable story that both satisfies the first group while deceiving the second.  The purpose of this site is to attempt to dismantle the most common claims of evolution that cannot be supported by true scientific evidence.

Defining Evolution

In order to understand a concept you must first define it.  A belief or theory can’t be disproved if it is never defined.  Evolution is a very slippery term by design.  Proponents of evolution have worked tirelessly to make evolution synonymous with two other words – science and change.

Let’s start with science.  One popular dictionary defines science as the “knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation”.  Science is testable.  It allows predictions to be made based on hypotheses.  Evolution is simply an idea or theory and just like any other scientific theory, it must be tested and withstand scientific scrutiny.  Believers of evolution state that evolution is “science” or evolution is “fact”. However, science is a process – it isn’t a thing. It is irresponsible and “unscientific” to dogmatically assert that a theory is “science” and is above the scrutiny of scientific examination. History books are full of widely held beliefs or theories that were shown to be ludicrous in the light of new scientific data (such as the idea that bloodletting would release bad humors and make patients well). The process of observing that people became sick and died when bloodletting was performed helped physicians come to the conclusion that it might be harmful – that was the science.  Similarly, when the theory of evolution is viewed under the scrutiny of science it falls apart (as we will see). However, in any creation vs. evolution debate – the primary attack on creationism is, “creation isn’t science, evolution is science!”.

Next let’s look at evolution defined as simply “change”. This is a tactic used to convince the public that evolution is legitimate and irrefutable. The story of evolution which has been used to convince people that evolution is change goes something like this:

• Evolution is change
• We see change everywhere, happening all the time, all around us (microevolution)
• Since we can see a little bit of change in a short amount of time, just imagine what could happen over billions of years (macroevolution)
• Life started out very simple (bacteria) and through the process of evolution became more complex and resulted in all the life we see today

So let’s define evolution a little more specifically based on what it is truly claiming to do – evolution claims to be a process that has the power to increase the complexity of life and is responsible for creating all the variety of life that we see today.  Now we can see that evolution is not simply “change” but it is “upward change”.  It is a change that adds new features and functions to life.  If I took a glass bowl and dropped it on the ground, I have effectively changed that bowl but did I improve it?  Evolution is claiming to have improved life over millions of years – not just changed it.  Understanding this difference is the key to understanding the truth about evolution.

Understanding Why Living Things Change (and how it isn’t evolution)

There are two types of change in the evolutionary story.  There is real change and there is theoretical change.  Evolutionists cleverly use the change that we see, the real change, to support change that is only theoretical.

Genetic Diversity

Genetic Mutations

Once it is established that the natural selection phenomenon is not evidence in support of macro-evolution, proponents of evolution will then point to genetic mutations as support.

Before we dive in and gain an understanding of genetic mutations, it is important to understand that when Darwin first proposed the idea of evolution, he made a lot of false assumptions.  He assumed that our bodies could change based on the environment.  This has been subsequently proven false (giraffes’ necks do not lengthen to enable future generations of giraffes to reach higher hanging leaves).  The environment can, for example, help finches with genetic traits that make them more suited for their environment survive and pass along those traits, but it has no ability to create traits that aren’t already in their genetic code.

Scientific observation and experimentation have clearly shown that Darwin’s hypothesis for how evolution happened was false. Therefore, the evolutionary community constructed “neo-Darwinianism” based on the concept that mutations in DNA are responsible for the new information necessary to account for all life on the planet.

What is a Mutation?

Once you understand what a mutation is and how it occurs, it becomes very clear that mutations are not support for macro-evolution. If you watched the Complexity of a Cell video, you saw that DNA is used to give instructions to the cell to create new proteins that perform vital functions for the organism. The DNA strand is literally a code that gives programming instructions to the cell.  DNA uses the letters A, C, G and T in combination to create 3-letter codes.  For example, AAA is the code that tells the cell to grab a Lysine amino acid.  Proteins vary in size.  The Titin protein is enormous with 33,423 amino acids in its chain.  The very small proteins can have around 100 amino acids.  These amino acids must be put together in the right sequence in order to develop the protein correctly.  If they are out of order, you have problems called mutations.

Here is an analogy to help illustrate this process.  Imagine you were learning to program and you created your own unique game of Chess.  You wanted to share it with a friend so you copied all the code and pasted it on your friend’s computer.  However, you hit a few wrong keys and a few lines of code got mixed up.  What would that do to your game when your friend tried to play Chess with it?  Well, it depends.  Someone with programming experience would probably say that 99% of the time a coding error will break something.  The other 1% of the time, you won’t notice because the error affected something insignificant that nobody noticed (like maybe the color of something in the background or the Help directory that nobody ever uses).  But how often would you say that the copying mistake actually added some new functionality to the game?  Not likely. In fact, it is inconceivable for that to ever happen.

A mutation is a copying mistake.  It is a change to the original code that results in the creation of a mutated version of the intended protein (instead of the intended protein).  Neo-Darwinian evolution claims that through this process of mutations, organisms will eventually obtain the ability to create more advanced functions (which eventually leads to different kinds of life).

Can Mutations Add Information?

It is an interesting concept, but is there any proof that it could happen? We should first come up with a prediction or hypothesis based on what we would expect to observe if mutations could add information.  Let’s outline very specifically what the claim is and describe what we would expect to see:

The Idea:

Billions of years ago, a single-cell bacteria (with complex DNA) spontaneoulsy generated and came to life.  As this bacteria’s DNA replicated, a mistake occurred during the copying process.  This mistake transferred to future generations and additional mistakes occurred in their DNA.  Eventually, all of these collective random mistakes caused the bacteria to evolve into more complex, multi-cellular organisms.  Given enough time (the miraculous ingredient for evolution), through these unguided random errors, the bacteria created a complex system of sexual reproduction.  In order to accomplish this, the male and female organisms evolved independently but in perfect alignment so their sexual reproductive processes became compatible with one another within one lifetime (otherwise how would they survive?).  These creatures’ offspring continued to generate millions of mutations that increased information in their DNA and lead to more and more biological functions and features.  Each time a new type of organism evolved, a sexual counterpart evolved (again, randomly) in order for that organism to survive and reproduce.  The random nature of this change with no guiding process caused trillions upon trillions of mutations (only a fraction of the mutations resulted in something useful). For every new kind of organism that was created “successfully” through this process, there were millions of predecessors to that organism that were less “fit” and eventually died off.  At any point in time throughout the history of the world, billions upon billions of different types of insects, plants and animals would be observed in the process of evolving into something else until the right kind of mutation occurred to create something stable and suitable for survival.

To summarize, if evolution were true, this is what we would expect to observe today:

• Partially evolved creatures everywhere.  In fact, creatures that appear “fully formed” and not in transition would be extremely rare.  How would an unguided evolutionary process know when to stop?  It is impossible – it would simply continue to grow like cancer unless acted upon by another force.
• It would be possible to view the DNA for any of these creatures in a lab and observe how all of the past mutations resulted in more advanced and improved information in the genome.  It would be possible to watch lab rats or fruit flies evolve (replicate small scale evolution in a lab).
• Fossils for intermediate species would be abundant as well as living examples of intermediate species all around us.
• You would not expect to see complexity that can’t be explained by mutations.

The Test

We do not observe what we would expect to see if evolution were true. Unfortunately, this lack of necessary observable evidence hasn’t caused most proponents of evolution to question the validity of the theory. Rather, proponents of evolution often dig in their heels and argue that the individual questioning evolution does not understand evolution and expects to see something unreasonable.  Let’s take a look at what we actually see (or don’t see) today:

• We haven’t seen any transitional creatures in our current world.  We should see billions of creatures in the process of evolving.

• We haven’t seen any transitional fossils. The claim that transitional fossils have been located is unfounded (although they are well illustrated in museum renderings and textbook illustrations).  Rather, proponents of evolution utilize fossils of fully formed, perfectly functional creatures that have some similarities to other fully formed, perfectly functional creatures as examples of transitional fossils.  This isn’t evidence of one kind of creature evolving into another kind of creature. It is likely the result of a designer/creator utilizing a similar, well-functioning blueprint.

• We haven’t seen a mutation add information to the genome – ever.

This lack of evidence for evolution is damning. Even the most famous proponent of evolution, Richard Dawkins, seems to have difficulty presenting a coherent explanation for the lack of evidence.  Take a look:

What about Beneficial Mutations Found in Bacteria?

You may have heard that evolution happens in bacteria before our very eyes (and that it is 100% proof of evolution). Not only that, but you may have heard that mosquitoes have evolved to become resistant to pesticides as well.  On the surface, it does appear that there is something to this. The bacteria have become resistant and they have changed – doesn’t that mean they have evolved?  Let’s jump to another analogy.  Let’s assume you were extremely susceptible to athlete’s foot and had it all the time.  One day in a terrible motorcycle accident, you lost both of your feet. The good news – you could never get athlete’s foot again.  Was there a change?  Yes.  Was there a benefit?  Sure.  Did you improve overall?  No.  Did you add new functionality and information to your DNA?  No.

This is essentially what happens to bacteria.  Antibiotics are designed to target specific types of bacteria – specifically their ability to reproduce. When those bacteria become deformed through mutation, the antibiotics fail to recognize the deformed version of the bacteria and therefore aren’t effective in killing it.  However, the overall result of the change from the mutation is negative.  The “evolved” bacteria is a lesser version of the original bacteria and only has an advantage in an environment where antibiotics are present.  In some instances, bacteria does show impressive resistance to antibiotics without negative effects, but in those instances, the resistance is not related to mutations.  The bacteria simply have a built-in defense mechanism (which was shown to be present hundreds of years ago before antibiotics were invented).  Again, no macro-evolution or increase in information has taken place.  Claiming that mutations are an example of the kind of change that creates new types of animals is simply not true.

Easy Out

We have identified and discussed reasons that evolution is a flawed scientific theory. Yet even without those explanations, we could come to the same conclusion through simple observation of animals in nature. There are so many examples of animals that are far too complex to have formed through an unguided, powerless processes such as evolution (watch “Creatures that Defy Evolution” for some great illustrations).  A very easy one to understand is the Dolphin.  Some Dolphins use echolocation to navigate the waters.  By emitting a high-frequency series of clicks, dolphins can ping objects around them.  When sound waves hit an object, they bounce back as an echo. The echo is picked up by the dolphin’s lower jaw (which is filled with fatty tissues that send the sound toward the brain for translation).  This process allows dolphins the ability to understand not only the distance, but the size, shape, speed and even direction of the object.  This is an incredibly complex mechanism.  If you calculate the probability that random chance could create this functionality, it is beyond mathematically impossible.

What are the chances this functionality could “evolve” twice (in two creatures completely independent of one another)?  The probabilities are inconceivable.  Yet bats also perform echolocation. Research by evolutionists has shown that the DNA code for echolocation in dolphins and bats to be essentially identical.  But how is that possible?  According to the “evolutionary tree of life” bats and dolphins aren’t anywhere close to related. The only solution in the evolutionary model is that random chance processes – through mutations – created extremely sophisticated functionality in two separate animals the exact same way over millions of years.  Not even the most die-hard sci-fi fan would endure a plot with that flawed of a premise.

In Summary

The following video is from Answers In Genesis (answersingenesis.org) – an excellent resource for getting answers to scientific questions that you may have.  This video does a great job of summarizing the two most obvious impossibilities that proponents of evolution ignore: