Why The Theory of Evolution is Wrong - Hands Down

I warn you now that this post is going to be VERY long! On the plus side, I'm referencing where I'm reading the theory of evolution from and directly responding to each section of it. As much as you may think I'm "ignoring the facts", you can see that I'm not :)

So we all know in short, that the theory of evolution is the process by which it is believed humans and other animals 'adapted' to their surroundings and environment via 'natural selection'. This theory is accepted due to apparent 'evidence,' which is what I'll be focusing on. We know the theory, the flaws in the theory that come from the lack of evidence is what I'll be focusing on in this post.

Fossils

So one thing we're told is that fossils show how species 'evolved' from one type to the next. If you go to my first reference from Berkeley University you'll see a page about horse fossil samples. The page explains that these fossils show that the transitional forms predicted by evolution, did indeed exist. I disagree.

This shows similarites between animals that existed years ago and those that exist in modern day. Just because the fossils are very similar, this does not prove in anyway that the first one became the last. Showing a bunch of fossils together and saying they're the same thing doesn't tell me anything other than speculation.

Anatomy

On Berkeley University's page on evolutionary anatomy, you can read about animals and their dewclaws. The page claims that because animals like pigs have 'reduced dewclaws', this conclusively proves they once had more 'digits' that then became reduced. I wonder why they have made this assumption. For some reason it's talked about it as if it's common sense. For all scientists know, these 'reduced dewclaws' could have some purpose that hasn't been discovered yet. There was a time when science thought smoking was harmless, but now we know better. Maybe the same would happen there is scientists put more time, thought and research into it.

There is also a section on how monkeys and humans have similar chest structures. Actually I think that points more toward a creator than to evolution. There's a reason for their chests being similar as the page explains. It's to do with the need for their shoulders and arms to move. I think this shows a creator using the same blueprint, as it were, for both species. He knows what works for each kind of animal.

Comparative Anatomy

Again on my third reference from Berkeley, there is a page comparing the anatomy of a whale with that of a hummingbird. The page says, "Their bodies have been modified and parts have been lost through natural selection, resulting in adaptation to their respective lifestyles over millions of years". I'm thinking, 'Does this person hear themself?!' We're supposed to believed that naturally and accidentally modification occured in these animals? And people think I'm deluded for believing in a Creator? Interesting.

Secondly, just look at these two animals! Just because they both have ribs, skulls and hind limbs, scientists believe they're clearly related. Right.

Snakes with Legs
If you check out my fourth reference you'll read about how scientists think that snakes used to have legs, but evolved/adapted not to have them anymore. (Sounds counterproductive to me, but let's separate logic from opinion). Maybe the 'limb buds' spoken about, that can be observed in the embryo, aren't actually that for a start. We look kinda like sea horses with a long section sticking out our backsides when humans are embryos, so I guess we evolved from seahorses then? Because we look kinda similar as embryos? Plus, it's said "some" species, so where did the other snakes come from? The ones that never had legs? Since we seem to think everything had to come from something else?

Maybe, instead of one becoming the other, there were 2 different species of snake and one died out? But they were so similar to each other that you think one was a snake that evolved into a modern day snake. I'm seeing a continuous pattern here than in science terms, things observed to be similar must basically be the same, or were previously the same.

Whales with Teeth

This is pretty much the same thing as the snakes. A skull was found that looks like a baleen whale but it has teeth, when these whales actually lose the teeth they are born with. Firstly, let's review again that baby baleen whales have teeth that they loose. Maybe this is also a baby whale skull that didn't lose it's teeth yet? It could always have been that way for all they know. Or maybe this was an anomalie? These things happen. Just because you found one, doesn't mean you can say "All whales used to have teeth all the time. They don't know, so they must have adapted/evolved to lose them. For some unknown reason. Fact". Nothing has been proved there in terms of evolution.

Molecular Evidence

Berkeley's page on molecular evidence says "Roundworms, for example, share 25% of their genes with humans. These genes are slightly different in each species, but their striking similarites nevertheless reveal their common ancestry". Note there: striking similarities. Scientists are still using things that are similar to argue that said things were once the same. Still not buying it really.

It seems this whole theory of evolution business stems from someone really wanting everything to have come from the same origin. It's reminiscent of why we discredit Freud as a scientist. He had a theory and collected only evidence that would support the theory, rather than the other way around. (Evidence collected leads to a theory). We think Freud's evidence lacks scientific credibility, but not the theory of evolution. Again, very
interesting.

Natural Selection

When talking about dogs descending from wolves, this page says: "These observations demonstrate that selection has profound effects on populations and has the ability to modify forms and behaviors of living things to the point that they look and act very unlike their ancestors". Well isn't that convenient? Science says that some animals have different DNA, look different and act different, but they're still related. I see no logical basis for this argument at all. What science are they going on then to establish this 'relation?'

Ecology
If you'd be so kind as to click here, you'll see a page about sparrows that says: "House sparrows in the north are larger and darker colored than those in the south. Darker colors absorb sunlight better than light colors and larger size allows less surface area per unit volume, thus reducing heat loss—both advantages in a cold climate. This is an example of natural selection".

Here's a thought - maybe they were always like that and 2 different types of sparrow existed for that very reason previously mentioned. Why did the sparrows have to be the same and then change due to their environment? I think this just suggests a clever creator who made them that way. Why would they need to survive, or adapt, or evole, if they were pure accident? Furthermore, how could they?

It was previously mentioned that, "In any ecosystem there are finite opportunities to make a living. Organisms either have the genetic tools to take advantage of those opportunities or they do not". Well surely, everything would just die out? Firstly, for the reasons I just metioned, they surely would have no reason or capability since they were an accident as a result of primordial sludge. But this process we're told took millions of years. They would be dead before they could make those changes.

Consider this: my parents are fairly average height. I have 3 brothers who are all tall - over 6ft. My dad isn't. I'm not. My grandparents weren't tall, my great uncles weren't tall. It goes on. Where did that tall trait come from? Secondly, there is no guarantee that it will pass on to my nieces and nephews and it certainly didn't exist before (if at all) for at least 2 generations. Passing down traits is too sporadic to be "natural selection". A trait that doesn't appear to exist suddenly appears in 3 out of 4 children, yet a trait that is apparenly carried may never be passed on. Secondly, why did my brothers need to 'evolve/adapt' to be taller?

With this logic, We don't need to worry about global warming and carbon dioxide, because we'll all just adapt to breathe that instead of oxygen. We don't need to worry about smoking, drugs and alcohol because we'll all just adapt to deal with that too. No you say? Surely by evolutionary logic that is in fact true. It will just take millions of years. Meanwhile, in case you didn't notice, people are dying of these things before they can develop and pass on that trait!

Finally, these are all environmental factors and it's scientifically accepted that environmental factors can't
actually be passed on. E.g. if I can cope really well in the heat, doesn't mean my kids will. So how would environmental traits ever pass on? Even before we consider the fact that animals would die out beforehand.

Experiments
This page explains why species die out, not how they adapt or evolve, by using an example of fish. Evolution is still not proven by these means either.

Science Strikes Back

So now to conquer this error, scientists have come up with 'punctuated equilibrium'. The suggestion that these environmental changes happened rapidly, e.g. in response to flood or drought. So there you have it, if that's possible then we definitely don't need to worry about how global warming will affect human life! In which case, why did it take millions of years for other species?

Here's the proof: evolution supposedly occurred so quickly that there wasn’t time to leave any fossils as evidence. (AKA, there is none, since the previous sections of the theory relied heavily on fossils). Isn't that convenient? Once again. It seems again that the 'evidence' is being molded to fit the desired theory. The theory of punctuated equilibrium was proposed only as a way to explain the lack of fossil evidence for evolution.

To Summarise

There is no concrete evidence to support the theory of evolution. Thus, I will not support it, believe it, or force students in schools to learn and believe it. But for argument's sake, let's say evolution can be proved. What it will never prove, is that there is no God. If that's your excuse to deny the Lord, you'll have to try harder.

I leave you with this:

In his book 'Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth', Swedish embryologist Soren Lovtrup writes, “I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology… I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science.”

(This section taken from an article by: The Evidence Bible)