Scientific discoveries have provided evidence against evolution, revealing the bias and speculation behind it. Regardless of this, speculative claims supporting evolution are still upheld as facts, while factual evidence against evolution is downplayed or disregarded. By taking a detailed look at the requirements for evolution, and carefully analysing scientific discoveries, we can clearly see that there is no conclusive evidence supporting the theory.
Archaeopteryx – claimed to be evidence of evolution from dinosaurs to birds
- Is there conclusive evidence of evolution?
- Speculation behind evidence supporting evolution
- Facts and theories
- Evidence against evolution in the fossil record
- Evidence against evolution in DNA
- Evidence against evolution in embryos
- Evidence against evolution from dinosaurs to birds
- Evidence against evolution of the horse
- Evidence against evolution of the eye
- Evidence against Human evolution
- Evidence against evolution from genetic mutation
- Problems with geologic dating
- Evidence for rapid strata formation and erosion
- Evidence supporting the flood theory and young earth
- Conclusion — summary of evidence against evolution
Is there conclusive evidence of evolution?
The theory of evolution is the most widely accepted explanation of how different organisms came to exist. Evolution is a process where the physical and behavioural traits of organisms change over generations. Arguments as to whether or not there is evidence of evolution are pointless, as there are two main scales: ‘microevolution’ and ‘macroevolution’.
Microevolution is the occurrence of small changes over a short period of time, while macroevolution is the accumulation of small changes over a much longer time period (i.e. millions of years). Both scales of evolution are claimed to share the same genetic processes; however, this is speculation, and ignores the fact that we have conclusive evidence of microevolution, but no conclusive evidence of macroevolution.
Evidence supporting microevolution
There is conclusive evidence of microevolution. This is where organisms adapt and change in small ways (e.g. colour, size, shape and behaviour). Evolution at this level occurs when existing genetic information is altered, and the resulting changes are passed on through natural selection.
Evolution at the species level is directly observable, as the changes occur during a short time period. This sometimes results in organisms being classified as new species. For example, the Italian sparrow is a hybridisation between the house sparrow and Spanish sparrow. Directly observable evidence reveals that genes are always altered within limitation of their original function (i.e. a bird remains a bird).
Evidence supporting macroevolution
There is no conclusive evidence of macroevolution. This is the theory that organisms can evolve into a different kind of species on a large scale (e.g. from fish to mammals). Evolution at this level requires the accumulation of new genes that produce entirely new unrelated functions.
Evolution above the species level is not directly observable, as the changes would have to gradually appear over millions of years. Also, there is no directly observable evidence that genes with entirely new unrelated functions can be generated. On close examination, the only scientific evidence claimed to support such genetic changes, and evolution above the species level, is based on prediction or comparison (e.g. similarities in DNA, similarities of fossils, and anatomical similarities between species).
Speculation behind evidence supporting evolution
Speculation is when an opinion is formed without knowing all of the facts. It can be based on little or no evidence. Although speculation does occur in science, the term is rarely used. Scientists prefer to use the term ‘hypothesis’.
A hypothesis is the first step in building a theory. It is a proposed assumption based on factual data, explaining how something exists. What makes it different from speculation is that a scientific hypothesis should be testable.
Evidence of evolution over millions of years cannot be directly observed or tested. The only methods available to test many hypotheses on evolution are prediction (which is assumption) or comparison (which is speculation, being based on similarities). Neither prediction or comparison can provide conclusive evidence of evolution.
Many predictions based on scientific hypotheses have been proven true. For example, we now have directly observable evidence that the earth orbits the sun. Other predictions have been proven false. For example, Bohr’s theory claimed that electrons were tiny balls orbiting the nucleus of an atom. Although it was based on a great deal of evidence, and predictions of the Bohr model were highly accurate, quantum mechanics eventually revealed that the theory was false.
Theories become more accepted based on the amount of evidence supporting them. However, evidence can be misleading, and data can be interpreted incorrectly. As mentioned above, accurate predictions have been made by theories that were eventually proven false.
Many scientific hypotheses, theories, and even facts, are merely speculations. The evidence they are based on is often scant and ambiguous. By using persuasive arguments, along with biased exaggeration, such speculations are often presented as though they are unquestionably true.
When evidence supporting evolution is put under scrutiny, and full details are taken into account, serious flaws become apparent.
Facts and theories
The terms ‘theory’ and ‘fact’ have different meanings when applied to science, which usually causes confusion.
The dictionary definition for ‘theory’ is: “An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.”
The dictionary definition for ‘scientific theory’ is: “A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.”
The standard definition is more related to speculation or opinion. In contrast, a scientific theory is a testable explanation based on factual data. This is why scientific theories can also be facts.
Rather than focusing on whether or not evolution is “just a theory”, we should focus on it being a fact, and how insignificant this really is.
Regardless of the amount of evidence supporting a theory, we can never be sure that we have all of the required evidence, or that we have interpreted it correctly. Due to this, we are unable to prove that many scientific facts are true.
Truth – the difference between facts and scientific facts
The dictionary definition for ‘fact’ is: “A thing that is known to be true, especially when it can be proved.”
The operative word above is ‘true’. Our ultimate aim is to find the truth, and when we claim that something is a fact we are claiming that, beyond all doubt, we have discovered the irrefutable truth.
The dictionary definition for ‘scientific fact’ is: “An observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final).”
A scientific fact is entirely different from a standard fact, in that it does not guarantee truth. It has the possibility of being disproved, and is considered to be true until evidence is discovered to disprove it (referred to as being falsifiable).
The unreliability of scientific facts
Some facts are temporary, such as the Empire State Building in New York being the tallest building in the world. It was for a forty year period, but no longer is. Certain facts such as this are short-lived, and are things that are naturally susceptible to change, unlike major scientific theories we claim to be facts.
Many things we once believed to be factual were never true: they seemed to be facts until further evidence appeared that disproved them. Academics believe that “there is no such thing as a fact,” and that half of the things we learn will be considered untrue in about 10-20 years time. This is known as ‘the half-life of facts’. What such academics are really saying is that many things we believe to be facts are merely speculation.
Even though many scientific theories have been proven false over time — by science itself, might I add — most people continue to have a blind belief in them. We accept scientific estimates as though they are indisputable, regardless of the fact that they frequently change.
Many scientific theories are based on very little data. Also, the interpretation of scientific discoveries is often based on an underlying bias (e.g. the desire to provide evidence of evolution). Regardless of this, we are taught to have unquestionable faith in such theories.
It is assumed that theories supported by a significant amount of evidence must be true. On many occasions, due to considerable evidence, someone is convicted of a crime they didn’t commit. Many years later, just one piece of evidence (e.g. DNA) is enough to prove that the person was wrongly convicted. In cases such as this, we can clearly see that even a large amount of evidence can be misleading.
As evolution is widely accepted among scientists, it is claimed that evolution must be true. This claim goes directly against scientific evidence. The belief of the majority does not guarantee something is true, or that it is more likely to be true.
In the past, scientists who presented new theories, daring to oppose widely accepted theories of the time, were ignored, rejected, or even ridiculed by their peers. Many years later the new theories were proven to be true (e.g. George Zweig’s theory on quarks, Louis Pasteur’s theory on germs, and John Logie Baird’s theory that pictures could be formed from radio waves).
Even today, scientists who go against widely accepted scientific theories are usually ignored, rejected or ridiculed. When the original theories are eventually proven false we are told that our knowledge about science is always expanding, and that it is natural for theories to change as we discover more about the universe.
We are expected to accept that scientific theories are unquestionably true, and that any evidence going against the theories should be rejected. At the same time, we are expected to accept that we might not have all of the facts, whereby the theories could later be proved false. These things are in conflict with each other.
We are taught that there is no evidence against evolution, and that there is nothing that cannot be explained by evolution. We are taught that there is a substantial amount of evidence supporting evolution, and that it is an unquestionable fact.
Regardless of the claims, detailed analysis reveals that all evidence in support of macroevolution is based on speculative interpretations of data (mainly prediction and comparison). Testing in this area is unable to provide any conclusive evidence, and quite often evidence is discovered that goes against the theory.
Time has proven that theories we considered to be unshakable facts, which were really false, were only considered factual because we lacked the ability to delve deep enough in order to find the truth.
The following are theories that were once considered factual, but have recently been proven false:
Reproduction of nerve cells in the brain
It was originally believed that nerve cells in a creature’s brain start dying from the day it is born, never to be replaced. In 1984, neuroscientist Fernando Nottebohm discovered that dying nerve cells in the brains of songbirds were replaced, yet scientists ignored the evidence and continued to promote the original ‘fact’ that this did not happen.
In 2009, scientists announced that creatures, including humans, are able to produce new, functioning nerve cells in their brains. The so-called ‘fact’ that these cells are not replaced has proven to be mere speculation.
The direction of a planet’s orbit must follow the rotation of its star
The rotation of the sun is anticlockwise, and all planets in our solar system orbit the sun in the same anticlockwise direction. Because of this, it was claimed that the direction of a planet’s orbit should always follow the rotation of the star it is orbiting.
In 2010, planets outside our solar system (extrasolar planets) were discovered to have orbits in the opposite direction to the rotation of their star. This new evidence goes completely against theories on the formation of planets, and reveals the speculation behind the original claim.
There is no water on the moon
For years it was believed that the moon was dry, and that there was no water on it at all. The only reason for this theory was that no water had been found on it, even though very little testing had been done.
In 2009, NASA fired a rocket into the moon, blasting out a hole, and then sampled the particles from the blast. In 2010, after a detailed analysis, Peter Shultz of Brown University, a lead author of one of the studies, said, “All the books on the moon say that the moon is dry, and now we have to rewrite that chapter.”
Evidence against evolution in the fossil record
It is claimed that the majority of rock layers in the Earth took millions of years to form, and that all layers provide a chronological time line spanning around 3.5 billion years.
Fossils of various organisms can be found within the rock layers. Less complex organisms are said to appear in the lower layers, with organisms becoming more complex in each higher layer. The location of fossils within the layers is referred to as the fossil record. This is claimed to provide evidence of evolution, revealing how organisms transition between species over millions of years.
Fossilisation and the formation of sediment layers
All that the fossil record really proves is that stratified layers of sediment were laid down in order, and organisms were buried during each stage.
Fossilisation is a rare occurrence, as dead organisms are usually eaten or decompose. Organic material must be rapidly buried in sediment in order to become fossilised. Water within the sediment must be rich in minerals, which results in the minerals entirely replacing the organic material, or forming a mould around it.
Scientists agree that the process of fossilisation can take place quickly. Bones, for example, can fossilise within five to ten years.
One of the main causes of fossilisation is through sediment deposited by fast flowing water, especially during flooding. Layers of sediment can rapidly form as flooding progresses. The rapid burial of organisms within the layers also increases the success of fossilisation.
Within a short time period, a global cataclysmic flood could produce all of the layers within the fossil record. Erosion from the flooding would cause sediment from the land to be delivered to the ocean. Smaller organisms that lived on the ocean floor would then be buried in layers of sediment, being more easily overwhelmed. Larger sea creatures would be buried after this.
Flood water on the land would bury plants and insects in sediment. As the water level became higher, animals and birds that lived on land would be buried, with the largest or more agile surviving longest — resulting in their presence in higher layers. Sea creatures would also be deposited and buried on land with the rising of the ocean.
If a global cataclysmic flood occurred, organisms would be buried in exactly the same order as the fossil record. The reason why the flood theory is rejected is that it is not compatible with evolution.
In order to support evolution, layers containing transitional fossils must be separated by millions of years. Within a single year, a global cataclysmic flood could create all of the sedimentary layers that are claimed to have taken millions of years to form. This would provide evidence against evolution, or suggest that evolution occurred extremely quickly — at a rate that goes against all evidence supporting the theory.
Problems with claims of transition in fossils
While many fossils are claimed to be transitional forms, this is speculation. Some supposed transitional fossils could be the same organism at different stages of life, or separate species of the same kind. All claims of transition in fossils are based on similarities, but similarities do not provide conclusive evidence of evolution.
There are several organisms once thought to be extinct that are still alive today, showing no evidence of evolution. These are referred to as ‘living fossils’. One example is the coelacanth, a fish claimed to have first appeared in the fossil record during the Devonian Period (around 400 million years ago). Based on the youngest fossil discovered, it was believed to have become extinct around 65 million years ago.
The coelacanth is in a class of fish named Sarcopterygii, which are lobe-finned fish. They have paired fins that contain muscle, which are joined to the body via a single bone. Fossil evidence of the coelacanth revealed four fins containing leg-like bones, and it was assumed that it could walk on its fins. It was claimed to have evolved full legs, and that it was a missing evolutionary link between fish and four-limbed vertebrates (tetrapods). This was first published as a fact in biology textbooks in the early 1900s.
In 1938, a surprise discovery revealed that coelacanths were still alive, and that they were relatively unchanged from their fossilised ancestors. They were found to be deep-sea fish that would rarely go anywhere near land. It was evident that their fins were only used for swimming, and certainly would not be able to provide any form of support or movement on land whatsoever. This is proof of the high level of speculation in claims related to fossils.
Lungfish are also in the class Sarcopterygii, having muscular paired fins that are joined to the body via a single bone. Lungfish are alive today, and are claimed to have first appeared in the fossil record during the Early Devonian Epoch (around 410 million years ago). It is widely claimed that lungfish walk on their fins, but this description is misleading. Lungfish move their fins in a ‘walking movement’ when in water, but cannot support themselves or prop themselves up on land.
In September 2016, the journal Nature included an article titled, “Trackways Produced by Lungfish During Terrestrial Locomotion.” The article covered studies on sediment impressions made by African lungfish while moving on land.
The studies revealed that the fins of African lungfish were insufficient to provide support or propulsion on land. The head was used to pivot the body, which resulted in alternating left-right impressions in the sediment. The body and fins left few traces. Tracks from the head could easily be mistaken for those of limbed organisms, whereas they were not made by limbs or fins at all. This evidence has again revealed the speculation and bias behind claims related to evolution.
The fossil of another fish in the class Sarcopterygii, named Tiktaalik, was discovered In 2004. Tiktaalik is extinct, and fossils have only been discovered during the Late Devonian Period (around 375 million years ago). Although it had gills, it is claimed that it ‘possibly’ had a primitive form of lungs as well, similar to lungfish. It is also claimed that it could walk on its fins.
Original claims regarding the pelvic girdle of Tiktaalik suggested that its structure would support it while on land. This was speculation, and further analysis revealed this to be false, due to the lack of sacral ribs. In addition to this, the fins are not connected to the spine, which would rule out the ability of walking on land.
Tiktaalik is still claimed to be a transitional fossil in the evolution from fish to tetrapods, even though there is no conclusive evidence. Speculative claims that lungfish and the coelacanth could walk on land were proven to be false. Regardless of this, scientists still uphold claims that Tiktaalik could walk on land, showing a blatant disregard for scientific evidence.
In January 2010, the journal Nature included an article titled, “Tetrapod trackways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland”. The article covered the discovery of well-preserved tetrapod tracks, dated to be in the Middle Devonian Period (around 397 million years ago).
The tetrapod tracks are dated as appearing 18 million years earlier than fossils of Tiktaalik. Based on the fossil record, this is evidence that fully-formed tetrapods existed long before Tiktaalik. To cause more problems for the evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record, fossils of tetrapod tracks appear far earlier than fossils of the tetrapods they came from.
Scientific evidence reveals that the location of fossils does not provide evidence of when organisms first evolved. Some fossils are only discovered in a specific layer, but this does not signify that the organism only lived within the time line the layer represents. Organisms could have lived for millions of years before or after their appearance in the fossil record.
As with the coelacanth, an organism might have lived for many millions of years without having left any fossils, and it might not have changed in any significant way during that time. For this reason alone, it is obvious that any claims of fossils providing evidence of evolution are based purely on speculation.
At certain points in the fossil record, rather than a gradual appearance of possible transitional forms, there is a sudden appearance of a large number of diverse fossils, all in one area. One such example is the Cambrian explosion, which occurred at the beginning of the Cambrian Period (around 541 million years ago).
No transitional fossils have been discovered in layers earlier than the Cambrian Period. The closest claimed ancestors are the soft-bodied Ediacaran biota, appearing in the Ediacaran Period (around 575 million years ago), followed by small shelly fossils and worm-like organisms appearing in the Late Ediacaran Period (around 550 million years ago).
In contrast, during the Cambrian Period there is a sudden emergence of diverse organisms in the fossil record, which goes against the estimated rate of evolution. Most major animal groups (phyla) appear at the beginning of the Cambrian Period, including organisms with complex biological structures (e.g. arthropods, crustaceans, molluscs, and vertebrates).
Trilobites are arthropods first seen during the Cambrian Explosion. Spriggina is a worm-like organism that first appeared in the Late Ediacaran Period (9 million years before trilobites). When first discovered in 1946, Spriggina was claimed to be an early form of arthropod, and due to its similar appearance to Trilobites it was considered to be their closest ancestor. Speculative claims such as these are often made when a fossil is first discovered.
Around 30 years later, detailed analysis proved that claims related to Spriggina were false, as it lacks key arthropodal features (e.g. segmented limbs). Further analysis revealed that it belongs to a unique group (phylum) of organisms, and that trilobites must have independently evolved any similar features.
Rather than the Cambrian explosion being evidence of rapid evolution, some scientists claim that it represents a large increase in fossilisation during that period. Either way, using the fossil record as evidence of transition between species has been proven unreliable by these discoveries. In fact, the existence of such diversity in one area does more to promote mass fossilisation due to a cataclysmic flood — which is ignored, as it provides evidence against evolution.
The fossil record itself does not provide conclusive evidence of evolution. There is no real evidence of species gradually evolving into other kinds of species on a large scale: in fact, there is hardly anything in between that resembles transition between species. Even Darwin himself, the man who brought us the theory of evolution, wrote in his book ‘The Origin of Species’ that he had doubts concerning evolution:
“Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.” — Darwin, The Origin of Species
Many people consider Darwin’s statement to be outdated, and that transitional fossils have since been discovered. However, Darwin’s point was not that there were no fossils of possible transitions, but that he would expect to find “every stratum full” of “finely graduated” fossils at various intermediary stages of transition, which we still cannot find today. The fossils that we have discovered may seem to be transitional stages between species, but there is no reliable evidence to prove that any transition took place.
Evidence against evolution in DNA
The evolutionary tree (or phylogenetic tree) is a representation of how organisms are related through shared ancestry. This is speculation, being based entirely upon similarities (e.g. similarities in fossils, anatomy and DNA).
Some organisms share a high similarity in DNA, which is claimed to be evidence of evolution from a close common ancestor. If we hold to this theory it would mean that bats are more closely related to horses than cows are.
It is claimed that humans and chimpanzees have somewhere between 95% – 99% similarity in DNA. There are arguments as to the exact percentage, due to varying interpretations of data by scientists.
As well as with chimpanzees, humans have high similarity in DNA with other organisms. For example, the similarity between humans and cows is around 80%, with dogs and mice it’s around 85%, and with domestic cats it’s around 90%.
Another claim, which seems to be ignored, is that humans and pigs have around 98% similarity in DNA. Pigs are considerably similar to humans both biologically and psychologically. Although there is such a high similarity in DNA, scientists claim that pigs are not closely related to humans.
Based on the phylogenetic tree, humans and pigs split from a common ancestor around 90 million years ago. The high similarity in DNA is claimed to have occurred after this split, through convergent evolution. This is a process where organisms independently develop similar complex features, due to the influence of environmental factors.
Humans and dolphins are claimed to have 98.5% similarity in DNA. Both are claimed to have split from a common ancestor around 95 million years ago, which was a wolf-like mammal named Mesonyx. The DNA similarity between humans and dolphins is also claimed to be due to convergent evolution, with dolphins independently gaining intelligence and social behaviour similar to humans.
Another example of convergent evolution is found in bats and dolphins. Both are claimed to have separately evolved echolocation, having no common ancestor with this ability. In 2013, the journal Nature included an article titled, “Genome-wide signatures of convergent evolution in echolocating mammals”. The article covered scientific research on echolocation, revealing that bats and dolphins share 200 identical genes in this area of the genome.
The claim that high similarity in DNA is evidence of evolution from a close common ancestor has been proven false. Many species share similar complex features, and yet there is no possible close common ancestor that has these features.
The theory of convergent evolution exists purely to compensate for the lack of transitional forms in the phylogenetic tree. Modern scientific discoveries have revealed that convergent evolution is more common that first believed. Based on this, there is no possible way of knowing which organisms share similarities based on ancestry, and the entire phylogenetic tree is called into question.
The fossil record is claimed to reveal organisms becoming more complex over millions of years, gaining new features. While evolution is claimed to produce increasing complexity, scientific evidence has revealed that this is not the case.
On September 27th, 2012, the journal Current Biology published research titled, “Ghost Loci Imply Hox and ParaHox Existence in the Last Common Ancestor of Animals.” The research reveals contradictions in the claim that organisms become more complex over millions of years. Genetic data revealed that many modern organisms have become less complex.
The fossil record and DNA are considered to provide some of the main evidence of evolution. New scientific discoveries in these areas go against widely held views, and are disregarded purely to uphold the theory of evolution.
A gene is a sequence of DNA that produces a specific protein, and only a small percentage of DNA is dedicated to this. Proteins provide an organism’s structure and functions.
If two organisms have similar structure and functionality then one would expect a large portion of the protein-coding region of their DNA to be similar. Little is known about the non-coding region of DNA, except that it is related to gene expression.
All that high similarities in DNA prove is that organisms have similarities. As we have seen with fossils, similarities do not prove transition between one organism and another.
Evidence against evolution in embryos
Anatomical similarities are one of the main reasons why scientists believe humans and chimpanzees evolved from a close common ancestor. This is no different from the claim that similarities between fossils or DNA prove that one organism evolved from the other, which is speculation.
Scientists also claim that embryo similarities provide evidence of evolution from a close common ancestor. The embryos of chimpanzees, chickens, rabbits, mice, fish and humans all have similarities during early development. This is claimed to be evidence of shared ancient ancestry among all of these organisms. After several weeks during development the embryos take on completely different forms.
Organisms with similar structures and functions are likely to have similarities in DNA, and are therefore likely to form in similar ways. This does not prove any level of shared ancestry.
The organs of foetal pigs are remarkably similar to those of the human foetus, and when fully grown their organs are similar to those in fully grown humans. Regardless of this, we are told that pigs evolved these features separately through convergent evolution, not from a common ancestor with humans.
The embryos of vertebrates (such as humans) develop structures called pharyngeal arches. The embryos of fish develop similar looking structures in the same area, called branchial arches. In humans the structures form bones in the ears and jaw. In fish the structures form gills. Due to this, it was originally claimed that human embryos have gills, and that humans evolved from fish — a claim still made by some.
While the pharyngeal arches of humans and the branchial arches of fish do appear similar, this is merely similarity in appearance. During the development stage they are formed into entirely separate, unrelated structures. It is incorrect to suggest that pharyngeal arches in human embryos are gills, and speculation to suggest that they ever were gills.
Human embryos are also claimed to have tails, which disappear during the development stage. This claim is misleading. What actually occurs is that the vertebrae of the embryonic ‘tail’ fuse together to form the coccyx. In some cases, humans have been born with ‘tails’, but these are not really tails. They are not made up of any form of bone, and do not contain spinal cord.
Dolphin embryos have protrusions in the hind quarters, which disappear after several weeks. It is claimed that the protrusions are hind limb buds, which is evidence of evolution, revealing that dolphins transitioned from four-footed land mammals to aquatic mammals.
Although dolphins don’t have rear fins, in 2006, Japanese researchers discovered a bottlenose dolphin that had well-developed symmetrical rear fins, protruding from the tail on the underside. What this evidence reveals is that the hind limb buds in the dolphin embryos were actually rear fin buds, and that they originally had perfectly formed rear fins.
A mutation in the bottlenose dolphin DNA re-activated their existing genes. Also, the lack of rear fins in most dolphins is from loss of function. The claim that the fins were once legs is speculation, as there is no evidence whatsoever to prove this.
Evidence against evolution from dinosaurs to birds
If dinosaurs evolved into birds, as evolution claims, we would expect to find fossil evidence of dinosaurs in intermediary stages of evolution. Fossils should reveal feathers that are partially formed or only covering certain parts of the body.
All fossils that conclusively have feathers reveal an avian anatomy, including complex wings with feathers similar to modern birds. Claims of dinosaurs having feather-like structures, or transitional stages in feathers, are based on speculation.
Feather-like structures on dinosaurs
Sometimes dinosaur fossils have indistinct structures on the skin, and due to their appearance they are assumed to be feather follicles. Other fossils have structures on the skin that are usually just lines. These filaments are more akin to fine hairs than feathers, but are assumed to be an evolutionary stage in feather production (protofeathers).
Scientific papers on feathered dinosaurs actually reveal that the structures are merely hairs. Close scrutiny of any so-called dinosaur protofeathers reveals the speculation behind such claims, and the exaggeration of evidence.
A dinosaur fossil was discovered in 1996, named Sinosauropteryx, which scientists claim lived during the Cretaceous Period (around 130 million years ago). The fossil is claimed to have feather-like structures that are protofeathers. This claim is speculation, as the structures are more like bristles, and show no similarity to feathers at all.
Some dinosaur fossils are said to reveal quill knobs on the forearm bone (ulna). Quill knobs are bumps along the bone, where feathers are attached by ligaments. These are only found on birds that are known to be strong fliers.
Rather than merely indicating that the dinosaur was feathered, the presence of fossils with quill knobs would indicate that the dinosaur was a strong flier, and should be classified as a bird rather than a dinosaur.
A fossil of Velociraptor was first discovered in 1923, in Mongolia. It is claimed to have lived in the Late Cretaceous Epoch (around 75 million years ago). Over a dozen fossils have since been discovered, but no feathers have been found on any specimens. While Velociraptor is claimed to have quill knobs, its arms are too short for flight. This goes against claims that the structures are quill knobs, and that they are related to feathers.
A dinosaur fossil was discovered in 2005, in South Dakota, named Dakotaraptor. It was claimed to have lived during the late Cretaceous Period (around 66 million years ago). The fossil was claimed to have quill knobs, but these were indistinct, and no feathers were visible with the fossil. The fossil was originally claimed to have a wishbone; however, in 2016, the ‘wishbone’ was discovered to be a piece of shell from a trionychid turtle. This again reveals the speculation and bias related to claims supporting evolution.
In 2005, the Journal of Morphology published research titled ‘Do Feathered Dinosaurs Exist?’ The paper claims, “The major, and most worrying, problem of the feathered dinosaur hypothesis is that the integumental structures have been homologized with avian feathers on the basis of anatomically and paleontologically unsound and misleading information”.
Even scientists have to admit that the structures on dinosaurs are hairs. They also admit that the claimed similarity of these structures with feathers is based on ‘unsound’ and ‘misleading’ information. A great deal of evidence supporting evolution consists of similar speculative claims.
Evidence against fully formed feathers on dinosaurs
When sequenced in 2004, it was discovered that the chicken genome contains instructions for producing wing claws, a long bony tail, and teeth. It was also discovered that these genes become inactivated during the embryonic stage.
While these features are referred to as ‘reptilian’, they are evidence that birds did have wing claws, long bony tails, and teeth in the past. The lack of these features in modern birds is from loss of function, and is not evidence of macroevolution — which would require an addition to the gene pool of new genes producing new structures.
Archaeopteryx is referred to as a ‘lizard-like bird’, claimed to have lived during the late Jurassic Period (around 150 million years ago). Since 1861, fourteen fossils have been discovered in limestone quarries in southern Germany.
The fossils were previously considered to be the missing link between dinosaurs and birds, mainly due to Archaeopteryx having claws at the end of its wings, a long bony tail, and teeth instead of a beak.
Regardless of having several features that are referred to as ‘reptilian’, Archaeopteryx has an avian structure, is classified as a bird, had fully formed feathers like modern birds, and was able to fly — albeit rather poorly. Although the tail has many unfused vertebrae, similar to dinosaurs, the vertebrae structure is not similar to those supporting the muscular tails of dinosaurs.
Each fossil varies slightly in size, and has varying sizes of claws and teeth. Although these slight differences are claimed to be evidence of evolution, they are at a microevolutionary level. To support macroevolution, a gain of structure or function would need to be seen. The fossils could be birds of varying ages, or perhaps different species. Treating Archaeopteryx as a link between dinosaurs and birds is nothing more than speculation.
Fossils similar to Archaeopteryx have been discovered in recent times. All fossils share the same avian structure, with fully-formed wings and feathers. The only features associated with dinosaurs are the teeth, wing claws and long bony tails — the same features also found within the chicken genome.
In 2000, a fossil named Microraptor was discovered in China. It is claimed to have lived in the Early Cretaceous Epoch (around 120 million years ago). Microraptor had an avian structure, with complex wings and feathers, and also extremely long feathers protruding from its legs. Based on the leg feathers it is claimed that it had hind wings; however, this is speculation.
There are many birds alive today with extremely large leg feathers that appear as flight feathers, but they do not assist with flight. These can be seen in some breeds of pigeon (e.g. the Old Dutch Tumbler), chicken (e.g. the Cochin), hawk (e.g. the rough-legged hawk), and other birds besides these.
It was originally claimed that Microraptor would glide rather than using powered flight, and that its hind leg feathers were used for steering, or that it flew like a biplane. These claims were based on speculation. Recent scientific studies have revealed that Microraptor was a strong flier, like modern birds. Microraptor is similar to Archaeopteryx, and should also be classified as a bird.
In 2015, a fossil named Zhenyuanlong was discovered in China. It is claimed to have lived in the Early Cretaceous Period (around 125 million years ago). The fossil was discovered to be covered in feathers, with complex wings similar to modern birds. Its structure and fully formed feathers are similar to Archaeopteryx and Microraptor, and it should be classified as a bird.
Claims of feathers due to fossil relationships
Although many dinosaur fossils are found without feathers, it is claimed that they had feathers because they are related to other feathered specimens. This method of reasoning is nothing more than speculation, and reveals the bias behind many theories used to provide evidence of evolution.
As scientists claim that Zhenyuanlong is a close relative of Velociraptor, they claim that Velociraptor must have had feathers — even though there is no evidence of feathers on any Velociraptor specimens.
Several fossils of Deinonychus have been discovered in the USA since 1964. Deinonychus is claimed to have lived in the Cretaceous period (around 115 million years ago). Again, no feathers have been discovered on any of the fossils, but it is claimed to have had feathers because it is related to other ‘dinosaurs’ discovered with feathers (e.g. Microraptor).
Organisms in the phylogenetic tree are claimed to be related based on similarities, and their location in the fossil record — which is speculation. Although fossils such as Zhenyuanlong and Microraptor are very similar to Archaeopteryx and modern birds, these similarities are discounted due to their assumed relationship with other dinosaurs.
Tails, teeth and claws
In 2016, a chunk of amber was found to contain part of a small feathered tail, claimed to be from a juvenile dinosaur. The fossil is known as DIP-V-15103, and is claimed to come from the Cretaceous Period (around 99 million years ago). The full tail is assumed to have up to 25 unfused vertebrae, which is far more than birds, and is the basis for the claim that it belongs to a dinosaur.
Claims related to DIP-V-15103 are based on speculation. Analysis was hindered due to very few differences between the soft tissue and bone. Only two tail (caudal) vertebrae are clearly visible. Due to the length of the tail, it is estimated that it contains 8 vertebrae. Also, due to the shape of the vertebrae, scientists assume that this is from the middle section of the tail, and that the full tail would ‘probably’ have up to 25 vertebrae.
The claim that unfused caudal vertebrae are only a characteristic of dinosaurs, and not of birds, goes against existing scientific evidence. Fossils of Archaeopteryx, classified as a bird, have tails with up to 22 unfused vertebrae. Even modern birds have up to 9 unfused caudal vertebrae, and this is increased in the juvenile stage — a stage that DIP-V-15103 is considered to be at. There is no conclusive evidence to suggest that DIP-V-15103 is the tail of a dinosaur at all.
Archaeopteryx predates all fossils of dinosaurs claimed to have feather-like structures (e.g. Sinosauropteryx and DIP-V-15103) by millions of years, revealing how irrational some of these claims are.
It was originally claimed that birds dropped their teeth to lose extra weight, which enabled them to fly better. This theory was based on speculation, and has now been proven false. Scientific discoveries have revealed that birds originally had teeth, and their anatomy suggests that they were strong fliers. It has also been discovered that a mutation caused a gene related to the development of teeth to become inactivated in modern birds.
Although there are no living birds that have teeth, fossils of birds with teeth have been discovered. Ichthyornis and Hesperornis are two such examples, which scientists claim lived during the Cretaceous Period (around 85 million years ago).
Apart from the teeth, these birds are no different from modern birds. Hesperornis was unable to fly, being more like a penguin, and therefore didn’t need to drop its teeth for flight. Ichthyornis was similar to a gull and was able to fly, even with its teeth. The fact that a toothed flying bird existed proves that birds losing their teeth was not related to the evolution of flight. This evidence once again reveals the speculation behind many claims related to evolution.
Although not commonly known, ostriches, swans, ducks, geese, and some other birds have wing claws. There are birds living today with well-developed wing claws that are lost at adulthood, where the claws are used by the young birds to assist with climbing. Two such birds are the African turaco, and a ‘primitive’ bird from South America called the hoatzin.
The hoatzin is of particular interest, having a small breast bone (sternum), similar to Archaeopteryx, meaning that it cannot fly very well. It is a vegetarian and has an enlarged, dual-chambered oesophagus, and multi-chambered crop. Unlike other birds, the hoatzin digests its food in a similar way to ruminants, such as cattle. While the hoatzin is clearly different from any other bird, it is obviously still nothing more than a bird.
There is no firm scientific evidence that dinosaurs evolved into birds. We see no evidence of any gain of function in dinosaurs (i.e. feathers/wings), but a great deal of loss of function in birds (i.e. teeth/claws/tail). Any suggestion of transition is based on speculation.
Evidence against evolution of the horse
In 1879, Othniel Marsh presented the theory of horse evolution. This was based on fossils discovered in rock layers from various locations around the world. It showed a gradual change over millions of years, with smaller mammals becoming larger over time, leading to the present day horse.
While this is claimed to provide evidence of evolution over millions of years, it does not provide conclusive evidence of macroevolution. Horses are claimed to have lost their toes as they evolved, resulting in the single hoof of the modern horse. Neither change in size or loss of function provide conclusive evidence of macroevolution — which would require gain of function.
In 2018, the journal Royal Society Open Science published an article titled, “The evolution and anatomy of the horse manus with an emphasis on digit reduction.” The research revealed that horse DNA contains instructions for five toes, and these are clearly seen in the early stages of foetal development. Scientific evidence confirms that horses have lost functionality over time.
In 2017, the University of Nebraska State Museum published an article titled, “Five Species of Fossil Equids Preserved In-situ at Ashfall Fossil Beds.” The article described how fossils of five species of horse have been discovered in the same strata at the Ashfall Fossil Beds in Nebraska.
It is claimed that during the Middle Miocene Epoch (around 12 million years ago), the eruption of a volcano in Idaho spread volcanic ash over hundreds of miles. The ash also fell around one thousand miles away in Nebraska, where the horse fossils were discovered.
Scientific evidence reveals that animals in the area died through inhalation of silica particles in the ash, and their bodies were covered in ash layers up to ten feet thick. It is claimed that the event was rapid, possibly taking only hours to form the layers. As smaller animals were found in the lower layers it is claimed that they were overwhelmed first, with larger animals surviving longer and appearing in the higher layers.
This is similar to the fossil record, where organisms become larger in each higher layer. The position of fossils could easily be related to a cataclysmic event over a short time period. Regardless of this, the evolutionary assumption is upheld, claiming that the fossil record reveals transition of species over millions of years.
The horse fossils preserved in the ash layers were: Pseudhipparion (a small three-toed horse), Cormohipparion (a small three-toed horse), Neohipparion (a large three-toed horse), Protohippus (a donkey-sized single-toed horse) and Pliohippus (a large single-toed horse, similar to modern horses).
In Texas, in 1973, the fossil of a small three-toed horse named Nannippus, about the size of a sheep, was discovered in the Pliocene Epoch (around 3.8 million years ago). The Pliocene is the time period where modern horses are claimed to have appeared.
These new discoveries go against the original theory of horse evolution that was presented by Othniel Marsh in 1879. Scientific evidence clearly shows how different variations of three-toed and single-toed horses of various sizes lived together at the same time.
Modern presentations of horse evolution no longer use a linear form that depicts horses gradually becoming larger over millions of years. Instead, a many-branched tree is now used to represent horse evolution, in order to fit in new fossil discoveries such as these.
Evidence against evolution of the eye
Eyes are extremely complex organs made up of many individual components. A large number of coordinated random genetic mutations would be required for eyes to evolve.
Each evolutionary change within the eye would have to produce structures in just the right area, with each change enhancing existing features. It is highly unlikely that such a complex organ as the eye could evolve in this way.
Eyespots are structures within cells (organelles) made of pigment molecules known as opsins. Opsins are photoreceptor proteins, and are also found in complex eyes. They detect light, allowing organisms to determine the direction it is coming from.
Although these light sensing structures are claimed to be the simplest stage in eye evolution, there is no conclusive evidence to support this. It is speculation to suggest that eyespots evolved into eyes, but the claim is upheld purely because it supports the theory of evolution.
Sponges and jellyfish have eyespots, and it is claimed that they first developed visual abilities around 700 million years ago. There is no fossil evidence to support this claim, so computer modelling was used to obtain the age of 700 million years. Computer modelling cannot provide conclusive evidence, as it is based on prediction and comparison (i.e. assumption and speculation).
The earliest fossil evidence of eyes reveals that they were complex. The eyes belonged to trilobites, which are marine arthropods similar in appearance to woodlice. They are claimed to have appeared at the beginning of the Cambrian Period (around 541 million years ago). Trilobites were discovered to have compound eyes, identical to modern insects such as dragonflies. Due to this discovery it is claimed that compound eyes evolved extremely quickly.
A theory has been formed on a possible evolutionary progression from simple forms of eye to the more complex forms today. This is based on various fossil discoveries, and suggests that the eye could easily have evolved in less than 100 million years. The theory, and the claim that the eye fossils represent progressive, transitional stages, is speculation.
It is claimed that several organisms gained compound eyes through convergent evolution. It is also claimed that eyes have independently evolved up to 40 times through convergent evolution. It is highly unlikely that separate organisms independently experienced the same coordinated random genetic mutations, developing the same highly complex organ.
New genes that produce entirely new unrelated functions and structures would be required in order for the eye to evolve over time. There is no conclusive evidence that this is even possible.
There are many organisms alive today that have varying eye structures, with some lacking specific components. These are claimed to be ancestors of more primitive transitional forms. The hagfish is one such example.
Most hagfish are unable to see, but they can detect light. Their eyes are often referred to as eyespots, but this is misleading. Rather than their eyes being similar to the organelles referred to as eyespots, hagfish have a form of eye that lacks many functional parts.
The claim that hagfish eyes could be a regressive form, having lost functionality over time, was considered implausible. It was claimed to be more likely that hagfish maintained a far earlier form of eye, where no further evolution took place over millions of years. Based on this, scientific papers have referred to hagfish eyes as evidence of evolution.
In 2016, the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B included an article titled, “Pigmented anatomy in Carboniferous cyclostomes and the evolution of the vertebrate eye.” Based on hagfish fossils from the Carboniferous Period (around 300 million years ago), the research revealed that hagfish originally had complex eyes, and that they could see.
What was claimed to be implausible by scientists was proved to be true. Scientific evidence reveals that hagfish eyes have lost functionality over time, rather than having remained at a primitive evolutionary stage. It is not surprising that the possibility of hagfish losing eye function was originally disregarded, as this would remove vital evidence supporting evolution.
Scientific theories claim that eyes became more complex, gaining function over millions of years. There is no conclusive evidence of this, as the earliest fossilised eyes were already highly complex.
New scientific evidence has revealed that many organisms alive today with more ‘primitive’ eyes have actually experienced loss of function over time. This is evidence against evolution, and again reveals the speculation and bias behind claims related to the theory.
Evidence against human evolution
The phylogenetic tree, representing evolutionary relationships through common ancestry, is mainly based on DNA similarities. DNA cannot be recovered from the earliest human fossils, so their relationship to modern humans is based on fossil similarities.
Fossil evidence associated with human evolution is meagre, consisting of a few bones and skull fragments. The fossils are dated by the rock they are found in, and humans are claimed to have evolved from ape-like ancestors over millions of years.
Human skulls are claimed to alter dramatically throughout the geologic time line. Due to this, it is assumed that there were various human species that evolved at differing rates.
Some fossils are claimed to be early modern human forms (archaic humans). Two examples are Neanderthals (claimed to have appeared around 130,000 years ago) and Denisovans (claimed to have appeared around 200,000 years ago).
Both Neanderthal and Denisovan skeletons are the same as modern humans, and their DNA can be found in modern humans. The reason they are considered to be of early human origin is that the skulls are slightly different from those of modern humans.
There is no conclusive evidence to suggest that they are anything other than fully human. While the skulls are slightly different, they are clearly human-like, showing no ape-like features. Scientific research confirms that there is wide variation in human skulls, with the shape differing according to geographic ancestry and ethnicity.
Fossils claimed to be the earliest human forms have skeletons and skulls that are similar to those of various ape species. As the DNA within these fossils is too degraded it is impossible to compare against modern humans. Despite claims that they are of early human origin, there is no conclusive evidence to suggest that they are anything other than apes, or that they are related to humans at all.
It has been claimed that there are up to 20 different species of human. There is wide disagreement in the scientific community over this claim, and scientists still cannot agree what classifies as a human fossil.
Some acclaimed early human fossils were later found to be hoaxes. The Piltdown Man fossil was revealed in 1912, but in 1953 it was discovered to be the skull of a great ape doctored to appear as an early human. In 1922, the discovery of a tooth in Nebraska led to the claim of Nebraska Man. The claim was retracted in 1927, as the tooth was found to belong to a wild pig.
Incidents such as these reveal the desperation to prove human evolution, and how little evidence there really is. Even today, many discoveries are blown out of proportion, where speculation is presented as fact.
The only reason some fossils of ape-like creatures are considered to be early humans is due to the possibility that they walked on two legs (were bipedal). Being bipedal and walking upright are claimed to be the main adaptions that identify when humans split from apes around 5-6 million years ago.
Some fossils of ape-like creatures have an anatomy that suggests more human-like movement, and there are claims that they ‘probably’ walked on two legs. Regardless of this, the skeletons are quite obviously those of apes, and the claim of transition between ape and man is speculation.
One fossil most often referred to as the best evidence of human evolution is Australopithecus afarensis (known as Lucy). Discovered in 1974, Lucy is claimed to be a an early human ancestor that lived around 3-4 million years ago. Lucy was clearly bipedal, due to the hip, leg and knee joint being more similar to humans.
Lucy is almost identical to a chimpanzee, and is obviously nothing more than an ape. Fossil evidence revealed that Lucy had powerful arms, suggesting that most time was spent in the trees. Lucy’s anatomy provided the ability to walk upright, but as the extended lower limb lacked stabilisation it would not be sustainable over a long period of time. At the initial discovery, most of the skull, hands and feet were not present, so assumptions were made regarding these.
In 1994, a complete fossil of the same species as Lucy was discovered, named Ardipithecus ramidus (known as Ardi). This new fossil is claimed to be 4.4 million years old, and has proved former assumptions relating to the missing parts of Lucy to be incorrect. Over 100 other fossils of the species were also discovered at the site, and the only features with any similarity to humans were the hip, leg and knee.
Ardi’s skull was found to be similar to a chimpanzee. Although the brain was 20% larger than a chimpanzee, the brain imprints were discovered to be ape-like, with no key human features. Analysis of the wrist revealed that Ardi was a knuckle-walker, like chimpanzees, and the toes were also curved, similar to tree dwelling apes. Once again, scientific evidence has revealed the high level of speculation in claims related to evolution.
In 2015, a fossil of a small primate was discovered, which has proved earlier assumptions on human evolution wrong. Danuvius guggenmosi is classified as a species of bipedal ape — not an early human form. The fossil of D. guggenmosi is claimed to be 11.5 million years old, appearing several million years before Lucy.
The hip, leg and knee joint of D. guggenmosi are human-like, similar to Lucy, and yet this is most certainly just an ape, about the size of a baboon. This does not fit in with the evolutionary claim that bipedalism occurred after humans split from apes. The claim that bipedalism proves humans evolved from an ape-like ancestor is speculation.
On October 18th 2013, Science Magazine published a study titled, “A Complete Skull from Dmanisi, Georgia, and the Evolutionary Biology of Early Homo”. The research was related to a complete skull that was found in Dmanisi, Georgia in 2005. The skull was dated as being 1.8 million years old, and yet the structure was similar to modern human skulls.
The discovery of this new evidence has led researchers to believe that the skulls previously considered to be from different human species are from a single species, and that there was a greater diversity in the size and shape of skulls in the past.
The earliest engravings by mankind were previously claimed to have originated about 100,000 years ago, on a pebble discovered in the Klasies River Cave in South Africa. On December 3rd 2014, the journal Nature published an article titled, “Homo erectus made world’s oldest doodle 500,000 years ago”. The research was on a fossilised shell from Java dated between 430,000 and 540,000 years ago, which was found to have engravings by humans. Stephen Munro, from the School of Archaeology and Anthropology at The Australian National University, said, “It rewrites human history.”
Even with these new discoveries, it is still claimed that modern man originated 200,000 years ago, and still claimed that the skull fragments are from various human species.
It is strange to think that those who profess to follow science are ignoring new scientific evidence, preferring to uphold previously held beliefs. The only reason for this is that the new discoveries provide evidence against widely held theories on human evolution.
Evidence against evolution from genetic mutation
Genetic mutation is claimed to be the main cause of evolution. While we have evidence that mutations increase genetic diversity within a population, we only have directly observable evidence that mutations occur at a microevolutionary level. This affects existing genetic information such as colour, size, shape and behaviour.
It is claimed that mutations also create new genes that produce entirely new unrelated functions and structures, which is a requirement for macroevolution. There is no directly observable evidence of mutation at a macroevolutionary level, and any claims of evidence supporting this are based on prediction or comparison.
New genes can be generated, but this is merely the duplication of existing genes with existing functions. Genetic mutations can produce beneficial changes to an organism, and these are referred to as new functions. However, directly observable evidence reveals that these functions are not really new, as genes are always altered within limitation of their original function.
The production of proteins from DNA
Proteins are essential for all biological functions, and determine the physical characteristics of an organism. Just around 1.2% of DNA in the human genome holds information on protein creation. The remaining 98.8% of DNA is non-coding.
Non-coding DNA was — and sometimes still is — referred to as ‘junk DNA’. The term ‘junk DNA’ was first coined in the 1960s, as scientists originally believed that it had no purpose. This claim was speculation, and scientists have now discovered that non-coding DNA provides a critical role in the development of an organism, and is associated with gene expression.
One issue that seems to be completely overlooked regarding DNA is the complexity surrounding it. All cells contain DNA. DNA is completely useless on its own, and relies on cells interpreting it to create proteins — which is referred to as gene expression.
A gene is a sequence of DNA that contains instructions on how to make a specific protein. Proteins begin to develop when external signals cause an organism’s cells to copy (transcribe) a sequence of DNA to messenger RNA (mRNA).
The mRNA molecule contains a chain of nucleotides. The nucleotides are split into three-sequence units called codons, and each codon corresponds to a specific amino acid. Cells translate the codons in the mRNA to form a chain of amino acids, which form a protein.
After a protein is formed, molecular reactions cause amino acids to bond, which folds the protein. Protein folding gives a protein its structure, which is vital for it to become functional.
Although it sounds complex, this is a very simple explanation, and there is much more to the process. It is very difficult to imagine how this could possibly have occurred randomly on its own.
There is an interdependence here that defies evolution. How can instructions be performed unless there is an interpreter? How can an interpreter work without instructions? How does the complex development of proteins randomly occur?
While we may consider cells to be very simple parts of an organism, looking into their complexity brings about many questions that scientists can only explain through speculation.
Genetic mutation and natural selection
Genetic mutation changes the DNA sequence of a gene, which alters the protein the gene caters for. When a gene is affected by mutation, the protein is a ways changed within limitation of its original function. Such mutations occur in a single organism, and any hereditary mutations are passed on via natural selection.
Epigenetic modifications cause genetic changes, but do not alter the DNA sequence. They occur when environmental changes (e.g. diet, stress, pollution, etc.) result in the addition or removal of chemical tags. The tags determine which genes should be switched on or off, and at what intensity they are expressed. These modifications can affect multiple organisms simultaneously, and are passed on via natural selection.
Genetic changes also occur due to ‘jumping’ genes (transposons), which make up a large percentage of non-coding DNA. These are transposable elements of DNA that can move to various places in the genome, which can result in mutation.
Transposons are not randomly inserted into any gene, but are encoded so that they prefer specific areas of the genome. This mechanism suggests a planned diversification, which goes against the random changes of evolution.
A transposon can consist of many thousands of nucleotides, which are the organic molecules that cells translate into amino acids, which form a protein. If such elements of DNA were inserted randomly in the genome they would be highly destructive.
The peppered moth and Darwin’s finches are claimed to provide observable evidence of evolution. Contrary to appearance, they do not present evidence of macroevolution — which would require the occurrence of new genes with new unrelated functions.
The peppered moth, native to Britain, is naturally a light grey colour, peppered with specks of black. This colour is the perfect camouflage for the moths in their natural environment. During the Industrial Revolution of the 1800s, pollution increased, turning the environment black from soot. Years later, it was noticed that the moths had become almost black, matching their new environment. This was claimed to be evidence of evolution, and that the moths changed colour to hide from birds.
All that happened is that the moths experienced a mutation in their DNA, which caused pigments in the wings to become darker (melanism). This was not due to a random genetic mutation affecting a small section of DNA, but the insertion of a large transposable element (transposon).
Any moths having this mutation would originally have been more vulnerable to predation, as they would be more visible. Due to the environment being darker, moths that blended into a dark background had a higher survival rate, passing on their genes via natural selection.
The Clean Air Act of 1956 cut pollution levels dramatically. Years later, the environment changed back to its natural, lighter colour. Eventually, the peppered moths also began turning back to their original colour. This is nothing more than natural selection, and no new information was added to the gene pool through the mutation.
Darwin’s Finches became separated in different habitats, with different food supplies. Those in the new location developed different behaviour and different beaks. This was claimed to be evidence of evolution.
It was later discovered that the changes were brought about by epigenetics, and the change in beak size was due to variations within a gene related to developing pointed or blunt beaks. Birds with the new beak size became the fittest, being best suited to the new food source. Through natural selection the new beak size became widespread.
Although considered separate species, Darwin’s Finches are still birds, and they are still finches. Again, no new information was added to the gene pool through the genetic changes.
Artificial selection
Unless they find that their environment has altered, and natural selection plays a part, organisms don’t often change. On the other hand, some plants and animals frequently change due to selective breeding (artificial selection).
Artificial selection is a process where the breeding of organisms is directed by human intervention. Organisms with specific characteristic traits are bred together, enhancing those traits in the next generation.
Livestock have been selectively bred in order to increase the amount of wool, milk or meat that can be obtained. Dogs were originally selectively bred for purposes such as hunting or herding, but now mostly to provide pets that suit all types of individual.
A population of organisms can sometimes experience random loss of genetic diversity (referred to as genetic drift). This is where genetic variations that are beneficial in other environments are bred out (i.e. they cannot be reactivated).
Organisms affected by genetic drift lose the ability to adapt to changes in their environment, and are also more likely to suffer from health problems. When organisms of a particular species become isolated, or small in number, they are more likely to experience genetic drift.
Artificial selection often results in genetic drift and inbreeding. This has increased detrimental effects in animals, meaning that they do not perform well in the wild.
Many newer breeds of livestock have trouble giving birth, meaning that they frequently require assistance. Whereas wild sheep shed their wool naturally, artificial selection has prevented domesticated sheep from shedding their wool, resulting in the requirement of shearing.
Dog breeds have changed vastly over the years, causing many to look nothing like their original form. While dog breeders find the new appearance appealing, selective breeding has introduced many health defects, resulting in a great deal of suffering for specific breeds.
There is no doubt that genetic changes do affect organisms on a small scale (microevolution); however, all evidence shows us that such changes are limited. We find no directly observable evidence of a fish changing into anything other than a fish. There is no conclusive evidence that an organism has evolved into any other kind than what it originally was.
Loss of specificity from genetic mutations
Based on directly observable evidence, we know that mutation causes genetic functions to change. There are many claims of macroevolution occurring from mutation, but these are always the result of an existing protein being inactivated, or its specific function being reduced (referred to as loss of specificity).
When a mutation is seen as beneficial, this is referred to as a gain-of-function mutation. This term can be misleading. Gain-of-function mutations do not result in an entirely new unrelated function being generated, but occur through loss of specificity.
If a protein is inactivated, or limitation of its function is removed, this is not enough to produce the entirely new unrelated functions required for macroevolution.
Even if new information is added to the gene pool, new information alone is not enough to result in macroevolution. The requirement is that new functions serving completely new purposes must be generated (e.g. for a single celled organism to evolve into a fish).
Notothens (also known as cod ice fish) live in Antarctica, and are claimed to provide evidence of evolution. They produce proteins that act as antifreeze in their blood. It is claimed that this ability occurred through the gain of entirely new unrelated functions.
The evolution of antifreeze in the fish has not been directly observed, and the claimed process is based entirely on assumption. The explanation goes as follows:
In order for the antifreeze to form in the fish, it is claimed that a section of DNA was first duplicated twice. This was followed by a mutation that occurred in one section of the DNA, which then developed the required code. The new code then had to duplicate itself multiple times in order for the antifreeze sequence to form.
The next requirement was that the DNA sequence had to be positioned in a specific area of the genome related to gene expression, which activated the gene. Finally, the protein had to gain a specific amino acid, which would act as a molecular label that caused it to be transported through the body of the fish.
Cod living in the Arctic produce the same antifreeze protein as Antarctic cod. The problem is that Arctic cod have no ancestral gene that could have been involved in the development of the protein. Due to this, it is claimed that the Arctic cod somehow developed antifreeze through convergent evolution. This means that both Antarctic and Arctic fish independently developed the exact same DNA sequence for antifreeze, but in entirely separate ways.
The claim that Antarctic cod gained new genes with entirely new functions is based on prediction and comparison. All similar claims are based on the same speculation. This level of evolution has never been directly observed, and there is no conclusive evidence that it can occur.
What has been ignored is that many existing proteins could easily become antifreeze by losing specificity. This again relates to the loss of genetic information, rather than the gain of new functionality. This would also explain how both Antarctic and Arctic cod developed antifreeze.
The likelihood of antifreeze occurring through loss of information is far greater. Furthermore, loss of specificity resulting in beneficial changes in proteins has been observed. Regardless of this, the more complex, unlikely, and unobserved method is upheld, purely because it supports evolution.
Genetic mutations that alter functionality
A point mutation causes a DNA sequence to change. Through mutation, nucleotides within the DNA sequence can change position, become reversed, be removed, or be added. This affects the amino acids that make up the protein the gene caters for.
A nonsense mutation is a type of point mutation that prematurely causes a nucleotide to become a stop codon. This leaves the protein incomplete and sometimes non-functional. On rare occasions, nonsense mutations can be beneficial. For example, the truncation of a protein can remove harmful functions.
A missense mutation is a type of point mutation that causes a different amino acid to be produced within a protein. While missense mutations are claimed to produce new functions, they do not produce new genes with entirely new functions.
All humans are born with a gene that allows lactose to be processed, but this is deactivated at adulthood. A missense mutation has resulted in lactose tolerance in adults. While this is claimed to be a gain-of-function mutation, it is due to a loss of specificity.
A frameshift mutation is a type of point mutation where insertions or deletions occur in a DNA sequence. It affects any amino acids in the DNA sequence after the point where the mutation occurs, meaning that part of the protein is not produced.
In the 1970s, bacteria that could digest nylon (known as nylonase) were discovered, which was claimed to be evidence of evolution. The cause of this new function was originally claimed to be due to a frameshift mutation. This was speculation, and new evidence revealed that this was not the case. The enzyme required to digest nylon occurred due to loss of specificity in another protein-degrading enzyme.
A splice site mutation is a type of mutation that inserts, deletes or changes nucleotides when RNA is spliced during protein creation. Similar to point mutations, this leaves the protein incomplete and sometimes non-functional.
New genes can be formed from non-coding DNA, and are referred to as ‘de novo genes’. While this is claimed to be evidence of evolution, none of these genes has been associated with entirely new unrelated functions.
A de novo gene discovered in the house mouse resulted in better regulation of reproductive cycles in the mice. While this is claimed to be evidence of evolution, the beneficial changes were caused by the loss of a protein.
When mutation occurs, the change in genetic information is random, and this frequently results in instability within the genome.
Nonsense mutations are the cause of diseases such as haemophilia and cancers. Missense mutations are the cause of devastating genetic disorders, such as sickle cell anaemia. Frameshift mutations are the most harmful, and are the cause of genetic diseases such as Crohn’s disease, and increase susceptibility to cancer. Splice site mutations are the cause of many genetic disorders and cancers. De novo mutations are are a main cause of neurological disorders. In fact, mutations are associated with loss of information, and are usually associated with disease.
Genetic mutations and DNA repair
Based on scientific studies, most genetic mutations have no effect (referred to as being neutral). Some mutations are harmful, but few are beneficial. A very large number of beneficial mutations is required for evolution to occur on a large scale.
Due to each mutation being random, this is highly likely to have a negative effect. Even if a beneficial mutation occurs, it is still caused by the removal of existing information, and a function being lost. To result in evolution, mutations over time would also cause many harmful effects within the genome.
Cells have the ability to repair damage to DNA through various methods. They react in an attempt to reduce all mutations, and are not discriminatory between those that are beneficial or harmful. Not all mutations are repaired, and they increase within the genome of an organism over time.
The very fact that cells can repair DNA is quite amazing, and scientists can only explain this through speculation.
It is obvious that there is an interaction between cells and DNA. The purpose of this interaction is to produce specific proteins based on genetic code, to exactly replicate existing information and functionality between cells, and to repair any genetic mutations. The fact that cells have mechanisms to identify and repair mutations is evidence against evolution.
Experiments on genetic mutation
The fruit fly has a gestation period of just twelve days, which means that many generations are produced within a very short space of time. Because of this, scientists have chosen to use fruit flies in experiments related to evolution.
In around 100 years of experimentation, scientists have witnessed the number of generations of fruit fly that would take humans thousands of years to achieve.
The first experiments used artificial selection to produce genetic changes. Over many generations, these eventually altered the eye colour, and the size and shape of the wings. All mutations resulted in disadvantages. When artificial selection was stopped, and the flies were left to breed naturally, they reverted back to their original form within just 15 generations.
In some experiments, radiation was used to dramatically increase the rate of mutation. Some mutations caused structures to appear in different places, such as legs appearing where antennae should be. In all mutations, physical changes were not small and gradual, but large and complete.
The experiments are claimed to provide evidence of evolution, where mutation generates complex structures. This claim is highly misleading. All that occurred was that specific genes were expressed in different areas. Existing structures were merely moved to another location, usually replacing a structure that was originally there. In addition to this, the structures that appeared in different areas were not functional.
The code for developing legs and antennae already existed; therefore, although changes took place, no new unrelated functions were added to the gene pool.
Many mutations that did evolve became weak or sterile, and either died out or reverted to their original state after several generations. Changes that occurred were due to loss of specificity.
Even with the best efforts, experiments on fruit flies have produced no evidence of them evolving into anything other than flies.
E. coil bacteria has a gestation period of between three and nine days, and experiments similar to the fruit fly have been performed on it. The experiments of Richard Lenski are often cited as evidence of evolution.
The most discussed experiment by Lenski is where E. coli bacteria, through mutation of its genetic information, was able to digest citric acid. The reason for this beneficial mutation was not due to a new unrelated genetic function being added to the gene pool. It was, once again, due to loss of specificity.
When a gene loses specificity an organism can adapt to suit a different environment. E coli can naturally digest citric acid in low-oxygen environments. In this case, the mutation removed the restriction associated with the digestion of citric acid.
While a mutation may appear beneficial in laboratory conditions, instability within the genome is also introduced. Many mutations caused the bacteria to lose functions, such as the ability to repair their DNA, or the ability to digest sugar. If these organisms were let loose outside the laboratory they would not survive. Even in Lenski’s work, most mutations were detrimental, and none resulted in new unrelated genetic functions being added to the gene pool.
The claim that evolution occurs through mutation is unproven. In fact, quite the opposite is true: experiments on fruit flies and bacteria have provided evidence against evolution.
In all experiments on mutation, the generation of new genes that developed entirely new structures or functions has not been directly observed, and there is no conclusive evidence that this is possible. Through direct observation, it is clear that mutation and natural selection can only alter existing genetic functions within their own limitations, or remove information from the gene pool.
The perfection of random genetic mutations
Many random mutations are required for an organism to evolve on a large scale. They need to accumulate slowly in a specific area over millions of years, and they must all be coordinated.
As mentioned previously, random genetic mutations can be neutral, harmful or beneficial. Neutral mutations are more likely to be dominant, as they are the most common. Although these mutations would not hinder or benefit the species, there would still be many changes. If evolution is true, surely we should see evidence in organisms alive today with partially-formed, seemingly pointless transitional features.
Rather than seeing many cases of flawed or unnecessary mutations, we see a vast number of organisms with perfect features that seem incredible. Scientists even produce new technology based on some of these amazing biological features. In 1799, the concept of the first plane was based on vultures and their ability to glide. In 2021, a new water-repellent nanomaterial was inspired by plants.
Evolution suggests that structures appeared on a reptile’s body, and these evolved into feathers. Scientists agree that feathers are complex structures. Not only are feathers complex, but birds have six different types of feather, which are perfect for achieving flight. Each feather is positioned in just the right place, causing the wing to act as an aerofoil, providing lift. It is shockingly hard to believe that so many perfect, coordinated changes occurred purely by chance.
Animals have a gene known as a plasminogen activator, which aids in the production of proteins that break down and prevent blood clots. The vampire bat is different in that this gene is activated in its saliva, allowing it to continue feeding off creatures it has caused to bleed.
Then there is the fact that the vampire bat has extremely sharp teeth, perfect for perforating even the thick hides of cattle; its tongue is perfectly developed for extracting blood, having a groove in which blood is drawn via a capillary action; also, there is the fact that it can detect blood using infrared sensors. The chance of so many coordinated mutations occurring randomly and being in such harmony with each other is highly unlikely.
The Early Spider Orchid produces a flower that looks similar to the female buffish mining bee. The male buffish mining bee attempts to mate with the flowers, which achieves pollination. In addition to this, the orchid gives off the exact same pheromone that the female bees use to attract the males. The pheromone released by the orchid is stronger than that of the bees, ensuring that the orchids have a greater chance of pollination. It is highly unlikely that these two collaborative mutations occurred randomly.
Television presenters who are pro-evolution can’t help but refer to certain organisms as being clever for evolving such amazing abilities. The use of the term ‘clever’ goes against their own beliefs, suggesting a subconscious acknowledgement of intelligent design. After all, there is nothing clever about random occurrences, and organisms are unable to affect their own evolution by choice.
Does genetic mutation occur out of necessity?
The Permian-Triassic extinction event is claimed to have occurred around 252 million years ago, wiping out 90% of species (around 95% of marine species, and 70% of terrestrial species). It is interesting how this supports the flood theory, where a large loss of life occurred in a single event.
Since the Permian-Triassic extinction event, we are told that a great deal of evolutionary changes have taken place. According to evolution, mammals first appeared around 175 million years ago, primates appeared around 55 million years ago, and early humans appeared around 2 million years ago.
In some organisms there is a distinct lack of mutation. Miraculously, there are organisms alive today that show no significant evidence of evolution over hundreds of millions of years. Three examples are the horseshoe crab, tadpole shrimp and the nautilus, which are all claimed to have originated during the Late Cambrian Period (around 500 million years ago).
Natural selection is claimed to prevent change in a stable environment, where organisms don’t evolve if there is no necessity for them to adapt. This explanation goes against scientific evidence.
According to evolution, change does not occur out of necessity. The first step in any variation of a species must occur through random genetic mutation. There can be no natural selection without first having variation.
If an organism benefits from its mutations it is likely to out-breed the original form via natural selection. If an organism neither benefits or is hindered by its mutations then change will still occur, through the dominance of one of the genetic mutations.
Within a stable environment, mutated genes that are dominant would have more chance of becoming fixed within a population. Surely, this would have to dramatically alter the form or behaviour of an organism — especially over a period of several hundred million years.
Genetic mutaiton does not always provide an organism with a beneficial adaptation to its environment. For example, in a specific environment plants can have various methods of seed dispersal. Each method, although different, is successful. Although a plant has no need to alter its method of seed dispersal, a genetic mutation could cause changes in this area. This would still alter the behaviour and form of the plant, even without there being any necessity.
As another example, many different birds of paradise live in the same area, with widely differing plumage and courtship displays. There is no reliable evidence to suggest that these birds needed to evolve plumage and displays that are so incredibly diverse from each other.
Then there is the fact that fossils of many variations of horse have been discovered in the same sediment layer in Nebraska. Small three-toed horses, large three-toed horses, and more modern horses were found to have lived in the same area at the same time.
We are told that evolution requires a linear development, where change occurs out of necessity. If this is true, why do we see so many claimed transitional forms living together in the same location, during the same time period, and persisting together over millions of years?
One point for which there is no reasonable explanation is the question of why single-celled organisms evolved into such complex organisms in the first place. Any explanations in this area, and on how new genetic structures and functions formed, are based on speculation.
Problems with geologic dating
It is claimed that any significant evolution of an organism requires genetic changes over around one million generations. For most organisms this would relate to at least one million years.
In order to provide evidence of evolution, each individual rock layer must represent a period of millions of years. This would mean that the fossils within each layer are separated for a period long enough to allow transition between species (i.e. macroevolution).
If rock layers are not millions of years old then neither are the fossils within them, which would provide evidence against evolution.
The unreliability of dating by index fossils
The geologic column represents a chronological timeline of various rock layers, identifying each one as it was laid down. The entire column of layers does not exist at a single location, but is based on various rock layers from around the Earth. Most layers are claimed to have taken millions of years to form, but there is no conclusive evidence to confirm this.
Geologic time scale – used to establish the history of evolution
Rock layers produced from volcanic activity (igneous strata) are dated via radiometric dating: a date is obtained based on the decay of radioactive elements within the rock. Fossils discovered within or near the rock are given the same date.
Rock layers produced from sediment (sedimentary strata) are dated via relative dating: an estimated date is obtained by comparing fossils within the rock to fossils in layers within the geologic column.
Sometimes fossils are dated by the rock they are found in, and sometimes rock is dated by the fossils found in it. Any date arrived at using this circular method is based on speculation.
Fossils of certain organisms are only found within specific layers. Based on this, it is assumed that the organisms only lived during the time periods the layers represent. These fossils are referred to as ‘index fossils’, which scientists use to date specific rock layers in the geologic column.
Dating via index fossils is based on speculation, and the geologic time scale is unreliable due to its dependence on them. Perhaps fossils have only been found within certain layers and not others; however, the fossils may very well exist in other layers, but nobody has found them. And what about the fact that organisms might have existed for hundreds of millions of years without having left any fossils at all?
There are many organisms alive today that are referred to as ‘living fossils’. Based on the fossil record, these organisms were originally assumed to have died out many millions of years ago; however, in recent times they have been discovered alive.
The coelacanth, believed to have become extinct during the end of the Cretaceous Period (around 65 million years ago), was previously used as an index fossil. In 1934, coelacanths were discovered to be alive, and indexing via these fossils was invalidated.
The Wollemi pine, a native Australian tree, was believed to have become extinct during the Jurassic Period (around 150 million years ago). In 1994, a living Wollemi pine was discovered, unchanged from the original fossils.
Organisms could have lived millions of years earlier than when their fossils first appear. They could also have lived millions of years later than when their fossils last appear. Index fossils do not prove that organisms only lived during a specific time period, or that they have died out at all.
The unreliability of radiocarbon dating
Radiocarbon (or carbon-14) dating is a process used to calculate the age of organic matter, and occasionally non-organic matter, based on the amount of carbon it contains. The carbon element’s radioactive carbon-14 isotope decays over time, and this is compared against the carbon-12 isotope, which does not decay (a stable isotope).
Organisms absorb carbon-14 while alive, but when they die the amount of carbon-14 they contain decreases over time. Carbon-14 has a half-life of around 5,730 years, meaning that dead organic matter containing half of the expected amount of carbon-14 must have died around 5,730 years ago.
Although accuracy beyond 4,000 years cannot be proven, it is claimed that carbon dating is accurate to within 50,000 years. According to scientists, any organism having died over 50,000 years ago would contain insufficient radiocarbon, meaning that the results would be inaccurate.
Even with the claim of 50,000 years accuracy, radiocarbon dating has still been used to date things estimated as being millions of years old. Many scientists have agreed that this process is unreliable.
For radiocarbon dating to be accurate it requires that there is no contamination within the sample. It also requires that the amount of carbon in the atmosphere has been constant over time, which is obviously untrue.
Two dates are generally obtained when using radiocarbon dating: one assuming that the decay rate has been constant, and the other using calibration to apply estimates of decay over the thousands of years. Although calibration is claimed to provide a more accurate date, the value used for calibration is based on assumption.
Due to samples containing so few radiocarbon atoms, a very small amount of contamination can affect dates by tens of thousands of years. The amount of radiocarbon present within a sample can also be affected by changes in the atmosphere, and in the Earth’s magnetic field, which scientists say is decreasing.
Large amounts of carbon-12 have been released into the atmosphere in various ways, greatly affecting the validity of radiocarbon dating. Carbon-12 is released via the use of fossil fuels, via gases released through volcanic activity, and through earthquakes – which release carbon-12 from limestone and substrates (at a rate scientists are unable to accurately calculate).
Another scientific claim is that organic remains containing radiocarbon must be at most 100,000 years old. Organic remains, including coal, which are claimed to be millions of years old, have been found to contain radiocarbon. When faced with this argument, scientists usually claim that this is due to contamination; however, by upholding this explanation, scientists are confirming that radiocarbon dating is unreliable due to contamination.
In 1971, an article in the Antarctic Journal of the United States, titled “Mummified Seals of Southern Victoria Land,” revealed that freshly killed seals had been dated as having died 1,300 years ago, and some that died up to 30 years ago were dated at 4,600 years. Recently, radiocarbon dating of ‘live’ mollusc shells off the Hawaiian coast revealed that they had died 2,000 years ago, and in Australia a 50-year-old felt miners hat that had fossilised was dated at 6,000 years old.
The unreliability of isochron dating
Isochron dating is a modern technique, using multiple samples taken from a specific rock. It provides a far more reliable method than standard radiometric dating, using elements created at the time the rock was formed.
An isotope of the parent element decays to an isotope of the daughter element, and the rate of decay is measured; also, a stable isotope, taken from an element in the same family as the daughter, is used to further compare against the rate of decay.
There are various isochron dating techniques, such as rubidium-strontium dating (radioactive rubidium-87 decays to strontium-87) and uranium-lead dating (radioactive uranium decays to lead). Here we’ll look at potassium-argon dating (radioactive potassium-40 decays to argon-40).
Potassium-argon dating is a process used to measure radioactive potassium decay within volcanic rock in order to determine its age. Radioactive potassium decays to argon gas, and the date of volcanic rock is based on this rate of decay. The age of the rock presented by this method is attributed to any fossils found within or near it.
Isochron dating is based on the assumption that the daughter element (argon gas) is not present at the time the lava hardened into rock. It also assumes that the decaying radioactive potassium was fully contained when the lava hardened into rock, that it has not entered or left the rock at any stage, and that the rate of decay has remained constant all of the time.
There is evidence that contamination does occur, giving amazing results from rock formed within our lifetime. Volcanic rock produced by an eruption at Mt Ngauruhoe in New Zealand, in 1954, was potassium-argon dated as being up to 3.5 million years old. In 1968, rocks known to have been created from an eruption in 1800 by the Hualalai volcano in Hawaii were dated by scientists to be 160 million to 3 billion years old.
The lava dome formed by Mount St. Helens in 1980 only took about five years to solidify into rock, and these rocks were potassium-argon dated as being 350,000 – 2.8 million years old.
The dates of these rocks are known via direct observation, and the radiometric dates show significant errors. How, therefore, can we possibly trust the dates given to rocks that formed at unknown times?
Evidence for rapid strata formation and erosion
It is claimed that the vast majority of rock layers must have individually formed over millions of years (uniformitarianism). However, directly observable evidence has proven that multiple stratified layers can be formed quickly, within just a few days.
In 1967, the Journal of Sedimentary Petrology published an article titled, “Flood Deposits, Bijou Creek, Colorado, June 1965”. The research was related to flooding that occurred after 48 hours of rain at Bijou Creek in Colorado, in 1965.
The flooding at Bijou Creek left sediment that made up to twelve feet of stratified layers. The sedimentary layers were neat and uniform, identical to others represented in the geologic column — each of which scientists claim were formed over millions of years. This research proves that multiple sedimentary layers can be formed in a short time period, especially in rapidly flowing water and through flooding.
In 1980, in the space of just one day, the volcanic eruption of Mount St. Helens deposited stratified sediment layers up to 150 feet deep. In 1982, a further eruption caused snow to melt, resulting in a rapid mudflow. This carved canyons up to 140 feet deep into the previous sediment deposit, revealing the individual layers. Further snow melts resulted in other canyons being produced in a single day, one of which was Step Canyon, which is around 600 feet deep.
The sedimentary layers of Arizona’s Grand Canyon and those produced from the eruption of Mount St. Helens are stratified in the same way, and yet scientists claim that those in the Grand Canyon took millions of years to form.
Evidence for rapid strata erosion
Most canyons (e.g. the Grand Canyon) are claimed to have slowly formed by erosion over millions of years. These claims are based on the assumption that the flow of streams or rivers, and other processes of erosion, have always remained consistent.
In 2002, the dam at Canyon Lake in Texas overflowed after a week of extremely heavy rainfall. The flooding created Canyon Lake Gorge, taking just three days to carve a canyon into the bedrock that was 80 ft deep, and 1.5 miles long. There are many similar cases, where vast canyons have been directly observed to form within days due to flooding.
Directly observable evidence reveals that fast flowing water can erode a large volume of sediment or bedrock in a matter of days. Most canyons that were not formed during human history are claimed to have been caused by erosion over millions of years. Rapid erosion is ignored purely because it provides evidence against evolution, removing millions of years from the process, and backing up the flood theory.
Evidence for rapid mudrock formation
Almost 80 percent of the geologic column consists of mudrock — sedimentary rock with a fine grain size, including mudstone, claystone, silt and shale. Scientists claim that mud deposits require mostly still water in order to form; therefore, according to scientists, it is a fact that mudrock formations are laid down over millions of years. This is given as a reason why a young Earth is impossible, due to the many separate layers of mudrock in the Earth.
In Science magazine, 14 December 2007, a study was published titled, “Accretion of Mudstone Beds from Migrating Floccule Ripples”. The research covered the deposition of mud, and was performed by Juergen Schieber, John Southard, and Kevin Thaisen — supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation.
Separate experiments were performed using calcium montmorillonite and kaolinite (extremely fine clays), and natural lake muds. The experiments revealed that mud starts to form in rapidly flowing water within a short time period, and also that the presence of organic matter with the mud enhances mud deposition from fast moving currents.
The reason for the research, according to Schieber, was that “In many ancient mudstones, you see not only deposition, but also erosion and rapid re-deposition of mud — all in the same place;” also, “The erosive features are at odds with the notion that the waters must have been still all or most of the time. We needed a better explanation.”
The fact that many mudstones hold evidence that they were created in rapid flowing water again reveals the general attitude of scientists. Any evidence going against a widely held theory is disregarded. A great deal of evidence against evolution is ignored in this manner.
In 1946, geologist Reginald Sprigg discovered millions of fossils of Ediacaran biota, soft-tissue organisms resembling jellyfish. These organisms were claimed to have lived during the Ediacaran Period (around 550 million years ago). The fossils were discovered within marine limestone spanning an area of around 200 miles, located in the Flinders Ranges, north of Adelaide, Southern Australia.
Scientists admit that the soft-tissue organisms became trapped rapidly in a large quantity of fine silt, which then rapidly hardened. The silt layer must have formed almost immediately, rather than taking the millions of years scientists claim limestone and other sedimentary rock requires. Also, fossilisation must have occurred within days, as the soft tissue of jellyfish easily decomposes or is destroyed.
This discovery disproves the claim that sedimentary rock, such as limestone, must form slowly over millions of years. Also, due to the quantity of fossils and the area they cover, the event leading to the organisms being trapped must have been cataclysmic. Scientists previously believed that only hard-bodied organisms could fossilise, once again revealing the level of speculation in claims related to fossils.
Sandstone is also claimed to take millions of years to form. In Kingoodie Quarry, Scotland, in 1844, Sir David Brewster discovered what is known as the ‘Kingoodie artefact’: an iron nail within a sandstone block from the Cretaceous Period, within the Mesozoic Era (between 65 and 250 million years ago). The sandstone block was formed around the nail, with the head completely embedded in the rock. This signifies that the nail must have been made millions of years before man is supposed to have existed — according to evolution.
Due to directly observable scientific evidence it is clear that strata can be formed quickly, and that mud deposits do not require mostly still water to form. Observational science casts doubt on the claimed age of sedimentary rock, revealing a lack of conclusive evidence to support the theory that the vast majority of strata formed over millions of years.
Rapid strata formation through mass extinction events
Scientists claim that there is evidence of mass extinction events in the past. The biggest of these events is the Permian-Triassic extinction event (around 252 million years ago), which is claimed to have wiped out 90% of species. After this occurred, during the Early Triassic Period (around 251.9 to 247 million years ago), sea levels are claimed to have risen around 33 to 66 feet.
The Carnian Pluvial Episode is claimed to have occurred during the Late Triassic Period (around 234 to 232 million years ago). This event is claimed to have been due to massive volcanic eruptions that ignited organic matter. The eruptions also released a large quantity of material into the atmosphere, including mercury and greenhouse gasses, causing climate change. This resulted in an extreme rainfall event that affected the entire planet. Rain is claimed to have fallen for 2 million years, causing a rise in sea level.
In 2022, the journal Gondwana Research published an article titled, “Long-term Phanerozoic global mean sea level: Insights from strontium isotope variations and estimates of continental glaciation”. The study revealed that, due to glacial melting and tectonic plate movement, sea levels during the Cretaceous Period (around 117 million years ago) were claimed to have been around 700 feet higher than today.
These events prove that a global rainfall event, along with glacial melting and tectonic plate movement, caused a rise in sea level, and that a large number of living things were wiped off the face of the Earth. Apart from the dates attributed to them being based on speculation, it is interesting how all events support the Biblical account of the flood.
Even with such evidence, it is not even considered that a global cataclysmic flood might have formed the rock strata we see today, or the fossils within them. Events that wiped out the vast majority of species were associated with a high level of flooding, which would suggest that stratified layers were formed rapidly, and would provide perfect conditions for fossilisation. Rapid formation of strata would remove one of the main sources of evidence supporting evolution.
Scientists have also claimed that crude oil takes millions of years to form, but new scientific evidence has proven the claim to be speculation. On December 18th, 2013, Engineers at the US Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) came up with a process that converted algae to crude oil within minutes.
Previous processes for forming crude oil used dried algae, but the new process can be used in a mixture that is up to 90% water. The new process uses high pressures and temperatures to convert the algae, which fits in nicely with the conditions scientists claim occurred during the Carnian Pluvial Episode, and also fits in with the flood theory.
Polystrate fossils as proof of rapid strata formation
Some rock strata have fossils of upright trees extending through them. Fossils extending through multiple rock layers are known as ‘polystrate’. Their existence suggests that the multiple stratified layers they are found in must have formed rapidly, involving a large volume of water.
Scientists admit — when it suits their theories — that some sediment layers can be formed rapidly. To counter the argument that a flood caused the rapid burial, a common theory offered by scientists is that the trees could have been buried over a period of thousands of years while still alive. This would explain why the trees did not rot during that time, and why they remained in an upright position.
Some of the strata in which polystrate tree fossils occur are mudrock (such as shale). As scientists claim that the layers around the fossils were formed within just a few thousand years at most, this would further contradict theories that mudrock must be formed slowly over millions of years.
Some polystrate tree fossils have been discovered to be upside down, and many have no roots. In this situation, sediment layers cannot have slowly built up around them over thousands of years. Trees that were upside down or had no roots would have rotted away before fossilisation could occur. This signifies that the fossils must have been formed within a few years at most. The only sensible conclusion must be that the trees were violently deposited within a very short space of time, and most likely via a flood. This is further evidence that a cataclysmic event can rapidly form clearly defined sediment layers.
Many polystrate tree fossils have been discovered within cliffs at the Bay of Fundy, near Joggins, Nova Scotia. The tree fossils were found to extend through coal seams in the rock, and in some places individual fossils extended through multiple coal seams. Scientists claim that coal takes millions of years to form; however, as the trees cannot have remained alive for millions of years, the coal must have been formed within a short time period.
Fossils of marine organisms have been discovered alongside the tree fossils, indicating that sea water was involved in the burial of the trees, backing up the flood theory. Both upright and upside down tree fossils have been discovered beside each other, within the same strata. These discoveries indicate rapid burial associated with a cataclysmic flood.
Charles Lyell, the man who influenced Charles Darwin, described polystrate tree fossils in his book ‘Elements of Geology’, published in 1882. Lyell suggested that the tree fossils disprove the flood theory, due to them being upright rather than horizontal. Around one hundred years later, a directly observable cataclysmic event proved Lyell’s opinion to be mere speculation.
The landslides caused by the eruption of Mount St. Helens in 1980 tore trees from their roots and deposited them into Spirit Lake. Three years later, a study of the lake revealed that within a short time period almost 20,000 trees sank into an upright position at the bottom of the lake and became fossilised. An article titled, ‘Erect floating stumps in Spirit Lake, Washington’, written by Harold G. Coffin in 1983, describes this in detail.
Evidence reveals how upright trees with no roots can be deposited in a short time period, allowing fossilisation. Shockingly, many scientists still cite Lyell’s opinions and disregard directly observable scientific evidence, going against their own principles.
Evidence for rapid formation of peat and coal
It is claimed that peat is formed through the slow accumulation and decomposition of plant debris. Existing peat layers averagely increase by one millimetre per year; however, this does not prove that all peat layers have formed at this rate.
Directly observable scientific evidence reveals that peat can form rapidly in wetland ecosystems. Also, large amounts of vegetation can be uprooted during catastrophic floods, and the vegetation usually collects in a specific area. If a large amount of vegetation is deposited in an area with poor drainage, and the water table remains high, it provides the perfect condition to rapidly form peat.
A large peat layer was rapidly formed after the eruption of Mount St. Helens in 1980. When thousands of trees were deposited into Spirit Lake through the landslides, the bark and other material from the trees formed coarse sheets on the bottom of the lake, absorbing the water. After five years, the resulting peat layer was found to match the composition found within coal layers.
Coal is claimed to have formed through peat being subject to heat and pressure over millions of years. The fossilised vegetation found within coal seams is similar throughout, showing no evidence of evolution via transitional changes. This would suggest that peat formation in these situations was rapid, rather than taking millions of years.
As some polystrate tree fossils extend through multiple coal seams, this also suggests that peat layers can be formed much faster than expected — especially if the trees were claimed to be alive during the process.
In 1984, the journal Organic Geochemistry contained an article on the rapid formation of coal. The article described how Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois discovered that coal was able to form within months. The process did not require any decay in vegetation, or any pressure.
All that was required to form coal was the presence of organic material, buried at a depth where there is no oxygen, along with thermal reactions. At a temperature of 150 degrees Celsius, coal was found to form in this situation in only 36 weeks. The formation was much faster if the temperature was higher.
Scientific evidence reveals that peat can form rapidly, and organic material can be converted to coal in a short time period. The only reason this is ignored is that it removes the requirement of millions of years, which provides evidence against evolution.
Evidence supporting the flood theory and young Earth
Recent scientific discoveries have provided evidence against the theory of evolution. These discoveries have exposed the high level of speculation and bias surrounding many widely held claims.
Even the most modern radiometric dating techniques are known to be flawed, and it is speculation that stratified layers have formed over millions of years. This evidence suggests that the Earth is far younger than current estimates.
Regardless of the facts, any discoveries that can be used as evidence against evolution are disregarded by scientists. The reason the flood theory is dismissed is that, along with the religious connection, it suggests that the sedimentary layers are not millions of years apart and neither are the fossils within them. Without millions of years there can be no evolution.
The Bible mentions the story of Noah and the ark, whereby eight people and various creatures were the only living things saved from a great flood that destroyed the rest of mankind.
There are literally hundreds of legends from ancient civilisations all over the world that mention a cataclysmic flood of enormous proportions, where the survivors escaped by a boat. Many of these stories, including that in the Bible, claim that the flood was a punishment for the wickedness of mankind.
The Central American Maya Civilisation was extremely advanced in its study of celestial activity, and had the most accurate calendar in the world — which retained its accuracy many hundreds of years after their demise. Every 5,125 years the Mayans believed that a cataclysmic cycle comprising heightened solar activity occurred, which caused a displacement in the rotation of the Earth. The next cycle was calculated to occur on December 21st, 2012.
The Mayans claimed that the previous cycle (5,125 years prior to 2012) resulted in a great flood that left few survivors. This is very interesting as the beliefs of the Mayan civilisation not only support the flood theory but further suggest that the reason for it was due to displacement of the Earth’s rotation.
By following the Biblical time line, and archaeological evidence, the age of the Earth is presented as roughly 6,656 years old: with the time of the flood presented as exactly 1,656 years after the Earth was created, and the time from after the flood until 2012 being roughly 5,000 years (with the flood occurring around 3,000 BC). This fits in perfectly with the Mayan calendar.
The oldest known written historical records only go back around 5,000 years, which would make sense if a global cataclysmic flood occurred at that time. Also, dating trees by their rings has shown that the oldest tree was a bristlecone pine in Nevada, dated at 4,800 years old, well within the 5,000 years since the flood. According to the scientific community, we have no strong evidence that any tree has lived beyond 5,000 years.
Scientists claim that cave paintings provide evidence of historical records going back as far as 65,000 years. The age of the paint was determined using the highly unreliable radiocarbon dating method. Scientists agree that the accuracy of these readings is questionable, due to the very small size of material that was dated. Also, there is still the question of why there was a sudden appearance of writing around 5,000 years ago, and nothing before that.
It is also claimed that trees currently still alive in Tasmania and Sweden are up to 10,000 years old. While the trees themselves have definitely not lived for 10,000 years, it is claimed that they are part of root systems that have been alive for 10,000 years. As there is no way of dating living root systems, this was also determined using radiocarbon dating.
Mitochondrial DNA and the origin of man
Mitochondria are energy producing structures within cells, and they contain their own DNA — separate to our nuclear DNA. While nuclear DNA is always inherited from both parents, mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is inherited exclusively through the mother.
Each person’s mtDNA remains mostly identical to their mother’s, but there is a rate of mutation that occurs. From this rate of mutation, the mtDNA of two people can be compared in order to determine how closely related they are.
The origin of modern humans is claimed to be 200,000 years ago. This claim was based on estimated rates of mtDNA mutation, assuming that the estimated rate of mutation was constant, and based on the speculation that humans and chimpanzees had a common ancestor living 5-6 million years ago. Regardless of the speculation and pure assumption involved in this claim, it is still treated as a fact.
In October 1997, The First International Workshop on Human Mitochondrial DNA was held in Washington, DC. Taking recent measurements into account, the researchers found that mutation rates in mtDNA were much higher than first thought, and the original estimate was changed from 200,000 years to around 6,000 years — which is in line with the Biblical age of the Earth.
The journal Science presented an article in January 1998, titled “Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock.” The article discussed the results of the recent mtDNA analysis, confirming that mtDNA mutates at a much faster rate than previously claimed.
Although the new estimate of 6,000 years was claimed to be inconclusive, the previous estimates of 200,000 years were also claimed to be inconclusive. As the faster rate of mutation is evidence against evolution it is understandable why it has been disregarded. Scientists still use dates that are taken from a theory biased towards evolution, and ignore new scientific data.
On October 28th, 2015, ScienceDaily published a report titled, “Chicken study reveals evolution can happen much faster than thought”. The report covered how scientists at Oxford University’s Research Laboratory for Archaeology, led by Professor Greger Larson, studied the genes of White Plymouth Rock chickens.
The research brought about the discovery that two mutations had occurred in the mitochondrial genomes of the chickens in only 50 years. This rate of mutation was 15 times faster than the accepted rate of change, being 2% per million years.
Scientists have cited this as evidence of evolution; however, no new functionality was added to the gene pool. The important point, which scientists have completely ignored, is that evidence of a higher mtDNA mutation rate has been directly observed. This evidence backs up research on mtDNA in 1997 (above), once again confirming that the origin of mankind must be far earlier than the estimate of 200,000 years.
Conclusion — summary of evidence against evolution
It is claimed that the fossil record is evidence of transition between species, but this is based on speculation. We cannot guarantee that claimed transitional forms didn’t live together during the same time periods. Some organisms claimed to be transitional forms could have lived for millions of years without having left any fossils, or their fossils could exist but remain undiscovered.
Based on fossil discoveries, it is claimed that organisms become more complex in each higher rock layer. This claim has proven to be speculation, as new scientific studies reveal loss of complexity in many modern organisms.
Similarities in DNA do not prove that organisms are closely related, or that one has evolved from the other. Some organisms are claimed to have extremely high similarities through convergent evolution, where they have no close common ancestor with these features. Modern scientific discoveries have revealed that convergent evolution is more common than previously believed.
Any directly observed genetic changes within organisms have been brought on by the alteration of existing genetic functions, but the alterations are always within limitation of the original function. There is no directly observable evidence to prove that new genes providing new unrelated functions can be added to the gene pool. This in itself is evidence against evolution.
The claim that stratified rock layers were laid down over millions of years is based on speculation. Directly observable evidence has shown that separate layers can be formed in days. Layers produced from the eruption of Mount St. Helens in 1980 are a perfect example.
Directly observable evidence has shown that mudrock does not require millions of years to form, and is often formed in rapid flowing water. Due to 80% of the geologic column consisting of mudrock, this signifies that the age of the Earth is many millions of years younger than claimed.
Radiocarbon dating has been proven unreliable due to many assumptions. It is known to be affected by the high possibility of contamination, and changes in atmospheric CO2 levels over time. Although it is claimed to be accurate up to 50,000 years, there is no way of proving this.
Even the most modern method of dating igneous rock is based on speculation, involving assumptions. This has been proven unreliable when used on rock created within our lifetime.
Scientists believe that mass extinction events occurred in the past. It is claimed that volcanic activity released greenhouse gasses that caused an extreme global rainfall event and a rise in sea level. This also deposited a vast proportion of the sedimentary and igneous strata we see today, and caused the formation of fossils and coal. All of these things are more in line with the biblical account of the flood.
Organisms must be rapidly buried in mud for fossilisation to occur. Given the amount of fossils in stratified layers throughout the world, a cataclysmic flood is more likely to have caused both the stratified layers and the fossils within them.
Stories from hundreds of civilisations around the world also back up the claim of a global cataclysmic flood. As evolution requires millions of years, scientists reject the flood theory as it suggests that sediment layers were formed rapidly.
The claim that humans split from apes around 5-6 million years ago is based on assumption. The origin of modern humans is claimed to be 200,000 years ago, but this is based on assumption. It also goes against new reliable scientific evidence, which suggests that mankind could have originated around 6,000 years ago.
The definition of science, provided by the Oxford dictionary, is:
“The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.”
It is strange how modern man prefers to teach evolution and hold it as fact, yet completely dismisses new scientific evidence against evolution. Such evidence is ignored purely to uphold the theory of evolution. Mankind will dismiss anything that could back up the existence of God.
“There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution.” — George Wald, PhD, Harvard University (Nobel Prize Winner), Scientific American Vol. 199, 1958
For more detailed information the following Websites are recommended for reference: