Some Science-Based Reasons to Reject Evolution

Definition of Evolution:

Depends on who is talking and what they want you to believe. Evolutionists like to claim the following:

• change
• any change in the frequency of any characteristic in any organism from one generation to the next
• “a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations”[1]

Darwinism – the theory of evolution that claims to explain molecules-to-man evolution:

Accumulation of mutations driven by natural selection resulting in the development of new types of organisms.

Adaptation   –   properly, how something changes to accommodate situational/environmental conditions; to adapt is simply to ‘change’ in accordance with some motivator.

Genetics:         DNA is a complex molecule that carries all of the information and chemical instructions that determine what an organism is, and for its development and characteristics. The more complex the organism, the longer the DNA ‘chain’ and more complex the arrangement. Smaller, less complex organisms have less genetic ‘information’ or shorter DNA chains with fewer bonds. The DNA sequence is specific to every element and characteristic within each organism.

Mutations (= change) in reference to living things means an alteration or error in the production of DNA. Most mutations show no physical indications, and do not carry through in reproduction. Mutations always cost the organism – the characteristic controlled by that part of the gene Loses some element of genetic information with either no effect or a negative effect. (sometimes a lost physical characteristic enables the organism to better survive some set of circumstances, but that is not the norm)

KEY:    Mutations = LOSS of genetic information & / or disorder of the system

Closed system – any system isolated from outside influence. The universe is by definition a closed system. The universe is the sum of all matter that exists in time and space. There is nothing material beyond the uni-verse. Note: some will try to argue that our universe is one among several in a multi-verse, and therefore is not a closed system. Don’t be fooled; first of all, this is begging the question (affirming the consequent) by introducing a convenient but unsubstantiated mechanism by which their assertion would necessarily be true. Secondly, it merely removes the problem to a farther realm. Ultimately, there is one large cosmos, regardless of how many sub-regions it may contain, and whatever that large cosmos, it is described by its limits and is closed at those limits. Without some outside source of energy, the total energy in this system must run out as it is being used up within the system. As that energy is consumed by the system or within the system, the system progresses toward greater entropy (disorder) and will eventually fall into complete disorder in the absence of an outside source of energy to replenish it.

SOME “SCIENCE”-BASED REASONS TO REJECT MACRO-EVOLUTION

1. 100% lack of fossil evidence of transitional forms.
2. No evidence of any type anywhere to support the occurrence of change from one kind to another.
3. 100% of fossils of known kinds past or present are identical to or not substantially different from their most recently living members. 150 years of fossil discoveries have produced exactly zero examples of an organism which was measurably different – that is different in some essential characteristic – than any of its successive generations.
4. Mutations always involved a loss of genetic information. Macro-evolution requires the creation and addition of completely new information into an existing genetic structure. Micro-evolution is merely the alteration of pre-existing trait or traits within any species group, and always involves the loss of genetic information. The fact of micro-evolution cannot be used to substantiate the plausibility of macro-evolution, as they require mechanisms completely opposed to one another. There is no historical/scientific evidence available at this time to affirm the event of information increase in the genetic code of any organism.
5. Information Theory states that the development and use of information requires teleonomy (plan) which in turn requires intellect. In order to generate new genetic information, there must be a source (telos). Without a plan, code lacks meaning. Without meaning, it is non-functional. In other words, if DNA lacked an interpretation, it would simply be proteins sitting there doing nothing. DNA does not create its own meaning, but is “read” by the system which interprets it according to its meaning. (further illustration: the English alphabet does not have inherent meaning. It is a code to which meaning is applied. For this reason, it can be used for other languages as well, in which case, the meaning changes, even though the vehicle, which is the letters used, do not)
6. Natural selection describes only the ability of an organism to survive its environment. More specifically, it is the improved ability of an organism with an altered/lost trait to better survive a specific environment than individuals without that mutation. (ie: dogs with more body fat and heavier, multi-layered coats will tend to survive in colder climates better than leaner, less hairy breeds.)
7. Implication of the second law of thermodynamics is that, in the absence of outside influence, nature moves towards increasing entropy (disorder). Organisms break down and die. Systems decay.

Macro-evolution requires that organisms progressively lose entropy, becoming more ordered, more advanced, and better adapted. This defies the second law, as well as observed reality in all environments.

8. Science knows that biogenesis does not happen – life from non-life. Quoting A.E. Wilder-Smith in The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution, “It is an axiom of physics that inorganic matter exhibits no concepts and no teleonomy….for this reason inorganic matter by itself is never able to produce a teleonomic machine spontaneously. An essential machine component, namely teleonomy or functional concepts, is lacking in primeval inorganic matter.” (p. 148)
9. Any theory of origins requires addressing the “first principle”. “In the beginning” either something, or nothing, existed. Spontaneous generation has been shown scientifically to be false, eliminating the option that, out of nothing, stuff appeared.

Eternally-existent matter would require an unlimited, unending outside source of energy to offset the entropy naturally resulting within the system containing that matter. Invoking an eternal outside source of energy to sustain an eternally-existent mass is in effect a circular argument, and violates thermodynamic principles. Since eternally-existent matter or energy is beyond scientific substantiation, there can be no “scientific” explanation of first principles. There can only be suppositions, based on reasonable conclusions from present observable reality and observable principles. We do not observe inorganic matter just existing with no prior affect. We have no example of physical energy existing in the absence of matter.

10. Transitional forms of organisms, if they were to occur, would be self-editing. The types of changes necessary for Darwinian evolution to occur, if they did not kill them directly, would render them incapable of surviving their current environment. The vast majority of possible “transitional forms” for all posited evolutionary categories contain phases which would be non-viable, and/or make the organism excessively susceptible to predators.
11. If such changes affected all members of a species – or if all members of a species became subject to upward evolution – there should ultimately be no remaining individuals from the original species as the progression occurred. But fossil evidence provides for all kinds continually throughout the generations including to the present day.
12. If the event of species change was entirely subject to chance, the likelihood of more than one individual undergoing any particular change would be infinitesimally small. New kinds would die out in advance of the “chance” of other individuals of opposite sex in the same locality evolving to an adequately similar degree to allow for procreation of the new kind.
13. Further to 12, it has been shown that different kinds cannot be mated to produce a fertile offspring, including those apparently similar. An example is the mating of a horse and donkey, which produces a mule, which animal is incapable of reproduction. There are numerous examples in hybridized plants, which will produce one generation of the mixed type, but that generation will not produce viable seed.

Consequently, if type “A” were to mutate sufficiently from its original form to make it a different type, it would require a genetically similar individual to produce fertile offspring. In the event that it was able to mate with the original form to produce a living offspring, the hybrid offspring would not be able to reproduce, causing the new kind to die out after one generation. The likelihood of chance causing subsequent generations of the original, or even individuals within the species, to evolve in the very same way toward the same end defies any potentially acceptable odds.

14. Coal has been formed in only a few weeks. Stalactites, fossils, and canyons have been observed to form in tens of years, and in some instances less than that. This empirically refutes the evolutionary claim that millions of years are required to form any of these, which claim is the basis for believing in evolution. (Millions of years are required to form fossils, coal, canyons, etc. Fossils, coal, canyons etc. exist. Therefore the earth has been here millions of years.)
15. The Mount Saint Helen’s eruption of 1982 caused a mudflow that carved a 100-foot-deep canyon through solid rock in two days. Larger cataclysms affecting wider geographies would reasonably cause consequences greater in size and impact, in comparably small time-periods.
16. Dead organic matter decays rapidly when exposed to air, the elements, or other organisms which would eat it. Claims that the fossilized trees standing upright through layers of rock were buried slowly over multiple thousands of years are inconsistent with observed reality. Only that part of the tree originally covered could possibly fossilize; the rest of the tree would decay gradually, and probably have turned to humus in a matter of 2 – 10 years. Creatures which die in the open are usually consumed by scavengers within a few days of their death. Soft tissue decays in a few weeks. Animals would decay altogether in a tiny fraction of the time claimed for fossilization, as minute layers of sediment build up slowly to cover the remains.
17. In a visit to Niagara Falls in 1867, Charles Lyell decided that the Falls was eroding at a rate of about one foot per year, despite testimony from locals that it was about three feet per year. Based on his decision, Lyell calculated that the Falls had recessed from the escarpment to its then-current point over a period of 35,000 years. This was accepted as fact for some time.

Since Lyell’s day, the rate of erosion has been observed, measured and recorded, and found to be rather in excess of the witnesses’ estimate; that in fact it was in the area of 4 – 5 feet per year. At that rate, it has been no more than nine thousand years since the Falls descended the escarpment, and could be much more like 6 -7 thousand.

18. Evolution uses the types of fossils found in different layers of rock to determine what age the rocks are. It also decides the age of the rocks by what types of fossils are found there. In other words, each factor is dependent upon the other for assessment of its age; this is circular reasoning.
19. Many fossils of supposedly more modern organisms have been discovered in rocks containing fossils of organisms supposedly dead many thousands/millions of years prior to evolution of the other. Human artefacts have been found along with other creatures supposedly much older than and extinct before humans, and human representations of a wide array of dinosaurs and other extinct animals pre-date any discovery of these extinct creations by modern ‘science’.
20. “The conditions for Neo-Darwinian evolution – strong irradiation, much mutation – are precisely those which are most detrimental to life.” (Wilder-Smith, p. 131)
21. There are many variables involved with the various dating methods (C14, K/Ar, uranium), many of the details of which are outside the boundaries of the observable, including assumptions about how much of the elements were present 1000’s of years past, what environmental influences existed and to what degree, including earth’s magnetic field, cosmic irradiation, depth and constancy of ozone layer, etc. Evolution posits convenient constants for all of these variables in order to work the equations to their favour. Even then, many diverse results occur when testing substances for age using these methods, and those which do not conform to currently accepted standards are discarded for more favourable results.

All discussions about a six-day creation vs millions of years are still essentially a question of creation ex nihilo of “kinds after their kind” vs or the existence of matter and energy in contradiction to physical laws, with complex life resulting from macro-evolution. This is true whether referring to atheistic evolution, positing no identity initiating the process, or theistic evolution, which posits a creator who put non-ordered matter into a non-directed “environment” and left it to develop on its own. While atheistic evolution is at least a non-contradictory proposal, theistic evolution is not.

The argument that the Bible is not a “science textbook” is irrelevant. It is a history book, recording what did happen. While it does not explain “how”, it explains “what” about +4000 years of earth history. Archaeology, secular histories, geology, and other life-sciences continue to endorse its accuracy.

Additionally, references to such things as the water cycle, Pliedes (called the “Seven Sisters” or the ”Seven Stars”), and the hunter, the earth being a globe, hung upon nothing, etc. were written hundreds and thousands of years before men had the ability to observe these things “scientifically”. It necessitates an explanation of how someone like Job – whose story is acknowledged to be one of the earliest written works – could know that Pliedes consisted of seven stars, when only five are visible to the naked eye – it has been in the past 100 years that the other two stars were discovered.

[1] http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html

Follow