The Fallacies of Atheistic Origin: Part 3 – Invalidity of Evolution – Evidence Against Evolution

• Natural processes cannot add genetic information to a genome. Well, let me clarify. Mutations can change things so that one phenotype has a possible value that never existed before. However, no known natural process can add new genes to a genome. No one has ever disproven this simple principle of genetics. There has never even been a little bit of evidence against it. Yet evolutionists throw it out the window because it makes their theory impossible. Let me explain something. In science, if there are two theories, one of which has extensive evidence while the other has little or no specific evidence but contradicts the first theory, the first is the only one that true scientists should take seriously.
  

  If natural processes cannot add genetic information to a genome, then there is only one other option for evolutionists. The first cell would have to have enough genetic information with enough built-in variance to account for nearly every organism on earth. Even the variance in dogs is astounding, yet this creature would need far more. Sure, it is theoretically possible that mutations could give some of the necessary nudges, but almost all mutations are either harmful or neutral. Only a very small percentage is beneficial. It is preposterous to throw out probability and simple genetics for one atheistic theory.
  

• Contrary to some claims, a long-term E. coli experiment has not proven evolution. There is an E. coli experiment meant to prove evolution. Without going into detail, people claim that the E. coli in one group of the experiment have evolved the ability to consume lactose. This is, quite simply, wrong. The E. coli, as you can easily learn online, already had the ability to consume lactose. However, this ability had a switch mechanism. This switch deactivated the E. coli's lactose-consumption ability in the presence of oxygen. In the experiment, a mutation disabled this switch, leaving the E. coli always able to consume lactose. This means the E. coli did not evolve, but instead lost a complex function. There was no increase in genetic information, but a decrease for specialization in the E. coli colony's living conditions.
  
• The cytochrome C protein varies in ways unexplained by evolution. Cytochrome C is a protein that performs various tasks in a cell. Its specific chemical makeup varies by species. From an evolutionary perspective, this protein should be more similar in more closely related organisms. For example, a simple bacterium's cytochrome C should be more like a yeast's cytochrome C than that of a complex organism such as a horse. This, however, is not the case. There are more similarities in the cytochrome C of most horses and bacteria than bacteria and yeast. Horses are not the only one, by the way. In fact, the cytochrome C variations between species seem to be completely independent of complexity or relation. Only by taking a highly select and unusual sampling of the cytochrome C in certain organisms can an evolutionary viewpoint even appear to exist.
  
• Ancient people drew pictures of dinosaurs in caves. Let me ask you a question. Unless ancient people were much smarter than we are (which is not the case according to evolution), how would they know what dinosaurs looked like without seeing them? Evolution teaches that man came about millions of years after dinosaurs. Some people claim that the images are not necessarily dinosaurs, that they could be anything. That is just pathetic. If they look like dinosaurs, they are dinosaurs.
  
• There exist polystrate fossils. What are they? Polystrate fossils are fossils that actually span many strata of rock. In evolutionary theory, these layers formed slowly over many years. Any organic matter in the sediment that became rock strata would have been completely rotten and biodegraded by the time the rock strata had actually formed. Thus, fossilization could not occur. How, then, do polystrate fossils exist? In certain catastrophes, evidence shows that things can fossilize very quickly if preserved in a large layer of sediment. Such a catastrophe could be the Noaic Flood, which fits nicely with Creation.
  
• In some cases, it appears that fossilization occurred so quickly as to stop an animal in motion or activity. That is, according to evolution, impossible. In evolution, fossils formed over millions of years, slowly petrifying. Only the right type of catastrophe, such as an instant torrent of mud, could fossilize something instantly. This, like polystrate fossils, fits nicely with the Flood and Creation.
  
• Evidence shows that carbon dating is fallible, though not entirely wrong. Carbon dating, contrary to what some will say, is not always right. It is also not always wrong. It works by measuring the amount of a certain radioactive carbon isotope (¹⁴C) with a known half-life in a ¹⁴C-bearing object and comparing it to the amount of ¹⁴C in the atmosphere. Since that ¹⁴C decays at a certain rate, if you know how much ¹⁴C is left as opposed to how much was there initially, you can determine how old the object it.
  

  The big mistake here is that, prior to the past couple centuries, we have no idea how much ¹⁴C was actually in the atmosphere. It appears that it could not have been much different for a long time, because some objects a couple thousand years old by other, more definite dating are declared approximately the same age by carbon dating. However, there are many instances of the ¹⁴C content in some object being unexpected and thus calculated to be much older than they really are. It is entirely feasible that at some point in the past (probably around three thousand years ago), the ¹⁴C content of the atmosphere was too far off from what it is today to give accurate dates. After all, there is no evidence that the amount of ¹⁴C in the atmosphere is stable. Any procedure based on unproven assumptions cannot be considered science.
  

• All of the major pieces of evidence for evolution have been either hoaxes or mistakes. By major, I am referring to the "breakthroughs" that get publicity. From Java man, to Piltdown man, to Lucy, researchers have proven all of the "eureka" evidence to be invalid. Not once has there been a significant find that has proven good for evolutionary theory.
  
• There exist necessary symbiotic relationships between organisms that did not "evolve" at the same time. How do evolutionists explain that? I have actually never seen debate over this point. Anyway, there are many pairs of species that engage in symbiosis that is necessary for the life one or both species. However, in most cases, evolution does not theorize that they evolved at the same time, even within thousands of years of each other. How, then, could whichever species requires the symbiotic relationship evolve (especially if the needy one came first, as if often the case)?
  
• The science of structural homology, which was once seeming evidence for evolution, now defies it. Structural homology is the study of how different organisms have similar bodily structures. Evolutionists often use it to promote the theory, "Look how all of these animals have similar body structures, even in their diversity! That proves they have a common ancestor!" If they were right, it would be powerful evidence for evolution. However, there is a problem. If the similar body structures were the result of similar gene sequences (as would be the case in common descent) from a common ancestor, you would expect to find the genes that code for specific body parts in the same general areas on the genome. This is not the case. The portions of DNA that code for similar body parts are in different places surrounded by different other sections of code. That is unexplainable by evolution, since not even natural selection and mutations can rearrange the general layout of a genome. It is, however, evidence of a common Designer who realized that, although certain body structure work well in different forms, they can be more efficiently transcribed and translated in different orders depending on the organism (either that or He just rearranged them to defy evolution).
  
• There are no undisputed or definite transitional forms between lower-to-upper organisms in the fossil record. That is just how things are. No one has ever been able to come out and say, "Look, everyone! This creature was a connector between species A and species B in all certainty!" Sure, there are online lists of supposed transitional fossils, but leading scientists do not back them. The statements of leading scientists (even evolutionists), actually, contradict the idea that there are many transitional forms. People have proven even the poster species of evolution like archaeopteryx not to qualify as missing links. Therefore, we have another hole in the pathetic excuse for a scientific theory that is evolution. If you do not believe this point, listen to what the following people, almost all evolutionists, have to say about it.
  

There you have it, then. Is this convincing enough? I hope so, because it is all valid science. So many people are deceived. Oh, and you do not have to just take my word for it. In my next post, I will give testimonies of other people, most of them evolutionists, about the problems with evolutionary theory.