Debunking Evolution: Problems, Errors, and Lies EXPOSED, in plain language for non-scientists

Evolution is undeniable. We may not have everything figured out, granted, but in principle that's how it works.

If you want proof of evolution, go visit the Chernobyl exclusion zone. Biologists have been observing all sorts of mutations for years now. Evolution in fast forward.

Wall of regurgitated text. You are only reading and looking at the things you agree with. Confirmation Bias/ My Side Bias.

You are taking the creationist's "straw man" and thinking that applies to evolution and the scientific method.

Look at the counter points by people that aren't in agreement. You will find these simplistic arguments aren't effective.

Also, instead of copying and pasting swaths of text, why not just add a link, like this?:
[link to www.thepoachedegg.net]


For your brain box:
FULL Why Do People Laugh at Creationists By: Thunderf00t:
[link to www.youtube.com (secure)]

Thank you, OP. Your take down of evolution is probably the greatest thread I've ever read on the internet -- at anytime -- anywhere.

I know the clapping man gif is used a lot on this site, but I am truly clapping like this in front of my monitor due to your thread.

Bravo!

Lol... I made this post in 09 and had no idea that people had been bumping it the last couple of months.

Maybe I'll pin it before I go out to piss off the evotards.

You religitards truly are insane. Unfortunately in this country mass stupidity isn't a crime. You are so deluded that you believe scientific fact is an "opinion." Actually I doubt you actually believe half the shit you spew. There's stupidity, and then there's prideful ignorance. The latter is far worse because you will do anything and everything to twist science to fit your dogma, rather than accepting facts that any third grader should know. If tomorrow your leaders told you gravity didn't exist you would believe them. But I digress I will stop now since you won't listen anyway. For some reason I keep trying to educate you idiots knowing that I will fail. Maybe I'm really the stupid one and should stop trying. It's about as productive as bashing my head against the wall.

Debunking Evolution:
problems, errors, and lies exposed,
in plain language for non-scientists



"Evolution" mixes two things together, one real, one imaginary.
Variation (microevolution) is the real part.
The types of bird beaks, the colors of moths, leg sizes, etc. are variation.
Each type and length of beak a finch can have is already in the gene pool for finches.

Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species.

What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of.

Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out.

And as one characteristic increases, others diminish.

But evolutionists want you to believe that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures. This is where the imaginary part of the theory of evolution comes in.

It says that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles, to name a few.

Do these big changes (macroevolution) really happen?

Evolutionists tell us we cannot see evolution taking place because it happens too slowly. A human generation takes about 20 years from birth to parenthood. They say it took tens of thousands of generations to form man from a common ancestor with the ape, from populations of only hundreds or thousands.

We do not have these problems with bacteria. A new generation of bacteria grows in as short as 12 minutes or up to 24 hours or more, depending on the type of bacteria and the environment, but typically 20 minutes to a few hours.

There are more bacteria in the world than there are grains of sand on all of the beaches of the world (and many grains of sand are covered with bacteria).

They exist in just about any environment: heat, cold, dry, wet, high pressure, low pressure, small groups, large colonies, isolated, much food, little food, much oxygen, no oxygen, in toxic chemicals, etc.

There is much variation in bacteria. There are many mutations (in fact, evolutionists say that smaller organisms have a faster mutation rate than larger ones13).

But they never turn into anything new. They always remain bacteria.

Fruit flies are much more complex than already complex single-cell bacteria.

Scientists like to study them because a generation (from egg to adult) takes only 9 days.

In the lab, fruit flies are studied under every conceivable condition.

There is much variation in fruit flies.

There are many mutations.

But they never turn into anything new.

They always remain fruit flies.

Many years of study of countless generations of bacteria and fruit flies all over the world shows that evolution is not happening today.

Here is how the imaginary part is supposed to happen: On rare occasions a mutation in DNA improves a creature's ability to survive, so it is more likely to reproduce (natural selection).

That is evolution's only tool for making new creatures. It might even work if it took just one gene to make and control one part.

But parts of living creatures are constructed of intricate components with connections that all need to be in place for the thing to work, controlled by many genes that have to act in the proper sequence.

Natural selection would not choose parts that did not have all their components existing, in place, connected, and regulated because the parts would not work.

Thus all the right mutations (and none of the destructive ones) must happen at the same time by pure chance.

That is physically impossible.

To illustrate just how impossible it is, imagine this:
on the ground are all the materials needed to build a house (nails, boards, shingles, windows, etc.).

We tie a hammer to the wagging tail of a dog and let him wander about the work site for as long as you please, even millions of years.

The swinging hammer on the dog is as likely to build a house as mutation-natural selection is to make a single new working part in an animal, let alone a new creature.

Only mutations in the reproductive (germ) cells of an animal or plant would be passed on.
Mutations in the eye or skin of an animal would not matter.

Mutations in DNA happen fairly often, but most are repaired or destroyed by mechanisms in animals and plants.

All known mutations in animal and plant germ cells are neutral, harmful, or fatal.

But evolutionists are eternally optimistic.
They believe that millions of beneficial mutations built every type of creature that ever existed.

This surprising admission is from the evolutionist journal Nature:

"Darwin anticipated that microevolution would be a process of continuous and gradual change. The term macroevolution, by contrast, refers to the origin of new species and divisions of the taxonomic hierarchy above the species level, and also to the origin of complex adaptations, such as the vertebrate eye".

Macroevolution posed a problem to Darwin because his principle of descent with modification predicts gradual transitions between small-scale adaptive changes in populations and these larger-scale phenomena, yet there is little evidence for such transitions in nature.

Instead, the natural world is often characterized by gaps, or discontinuities.

One type of gap relates to the existence of 'organs of extreme perfection', such as the eye, or morphological innovations, such as wings, both of which are found fully formed in present-day organisms without leaving evidence of how they evolved."-- Reznick, David N., Robert E. Ricklefs. 12 February 2009. Darwin's bridge between microevolution and macroevolution. Nature, Vol. 457, pp. 837-842.

There are two versions of evolution.
The first (neo-Darwiniam synthesis) proposed that many tiny changes made new creatures.

But evolutionists are conceding that "major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity."
"The principal 'types' seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization.

No intermediate 'grades' or intermediate forms between different types are detectable."17

They could not find tiny changes between one type of creature and another in the fossil record, so a few evolutionists proposed instead that change occurred by occasional leaps (punctuated equilibrium).

Each hypothetical beneficial mutation could only make a slight change.

Any more than that would be so disruptive as to cause death.

So punctuated equilibrium is not really one leap at a time.

It envisions a lot of slight changes over thousands of years, then nothing happens for millions of years.

Evolutionists say with a straight face that no fossils have been found from a leap because thousands of years is too fast in the billions of years of "geologic time" to leave any.

On the other hand, without fossils there is no evidence that any leaps ever happened, and of course there is no evidence that leaps or gradual changes are happening today in any of the millions of species that still exist.

Evolution is all about constant change, whether gradual or in leaps.

Consider a cloud in the sky: it is constantly changing shape due to natural forces. It might look like, say, a rabbit now, and a few minutes later appear to be, say, a horse.

In between, the whole mass is shifting about.

In a few more minutes it may look like a bird.

The problem for evolution is that we never see the shifting between shapes in the fossil record.

All fossils are of complete animals and plants, not works in progress "under construction".
That is why we can give each distinct plant or animal a name.

If evolution's continuous morphing were really going on, every fossil would show change underway throughout the creature, with parts in various stages of completion. For every successful change there should be many more that lead to nothing.

The whole process is random trial and error, without direction.
]
So every plant and animal, living or fossil, should be covered inside and out with useless growths and have parts under construction.

It is a grotesque image, and just what the theory of evolution really predicts.

Even Charles Darwin had a glimpse of the problem in his day.

He wrote in his book On the Origin of Species: "The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on Earth must be truly enormous. 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 gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."

The more fossils that are found, the better sense we have of what lived in the past.

Since Darwin's day, the number of fossils that have been collected has grown tremendously, so we now have a pretty accurate picture.

The gradual morphing of one type of creature to another that evolution predicts is nowhere to be found.
There should have been millions of transitional creatures if evolution were true.

In the "tree of life" that evolutionists have dreamed up, gaps in the fossil record are especially huge between single-cell creatures, complex invertebrates (such as snails, jellyfish, trilobites, clams, and sponges), and what evolutionists claim were the first vertebrates, fish.

In fact, there are no fossil ancestors at all for complex invertebrates or fish.

That alone is fatal to the theory of evolution. The fossil record shows that evolution never happened.

This tiny fish (a little over an inch long, or 3 cm) is Haikouichthys. Its fossils have been found in the Lower Cambrian, where the first complex creatures suddenly appear in the fossil record. This "first fish" has a spine and spinal chord, eyes, gills, fins, scales, mouth, etc., though no jaw, like a lamprey. About 500 were found buried together.27

This is Guiyu, a fossil fish that "represents the oldest near-complete gnathostome (jawed vertebrate)."31 It measures about 15 inches long, or 37 cm. Clearly, the earliest fish were as much fish as today's fish. Guiyu is "a representative of modern fishes" from the Silurian, before the so-called "age of fishes." (Devonian).7 In the evolutionist's mind, "a whole series of major branching events... must have taken place well before the end of the Silurian." "A significant part of early vertebrate evolution is unknown."7

Coelacanth disappeared from the fossil record with the last of the dinosaurs.

That was supposedly 65 million years ago.

Here it is today, alive and unchanged.

Where is the evolution?

The platypus has a duck-like bill, swims with webbed feet, and lays eggs.

Yet nobody calls it a transitional creature between mammals and ducks.


Archaeopteryx has long been held up as the great example of a transitional creature, appearing to be part dinosaur and part bird.

However, it is a fully formed, complete animal with no half-finished components or useless growths.

That is also the case for the other birds in the evolutionary tree.

Evolutionists just placed some of the many living and extinct species next to each other to make the bird series.

The same is true for the famous horse series. Each of the supposed ancestors is a complete animal. They are not full of failed growths and there are no parts under construction.

There are many more differences between each type of animal than their size and the number of toes. Every change in structure, function, and process would have had to develop through random trial-and-error if evolution were true, but no transitional forms have been found.

The fossils have not caught any changes in the midst of being created, even though they should have occurred over long periods of time.

In the late 1800's, evolutionists simply placed living and extinct species next to each other to make the horse series.

However, evolutionists no longer believe there was the direct ancestry (orthogenesis) shown in this chart...

Evolutionists now imagine it to be this branching bush. Many of the supposed ancestors apparently lived at the same time, especially after Mesohippus.

It is doubtful that Hyracotherium (formerly Eohippus) has any connection to horses.

So the progression of toes is an illusion that was useful when the theory of evolution was first being sold to the public.

Several hundred species are extinct; only one genus, Equus, survives.

Debunking Evolution:
problems, errors, and lies exposed,
in plain language for non-scientists



"Evolution" mixes two things together, one real, one imaginary.
Variation (microevolution) is the real part.
The types of bird beaks, the colors of moths, leg sizes, etc. are variation.
Each type and length of beak a finch can have is already in the gene pool for finches.

Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species.

What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of.

Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out.

And as one characteristic increases, others diminish.

But evolutionists want you to believe that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures. This is where the imaginary part of the theory of evolution comes in.

It says that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles, to name a few.

Do these big changes (macroevolution) really happen?

Evolutionists tell us we cannot see evolution taking place because it happens too slowly. A human generation takes about 20 years from birth to parenthood. They say it took tens of thousands of generations to form man from a common ancestor with the ape, from populations of only hundreds or thousands.

We do not have these problems with bacteria. A new generation of bacteria grows in as short as 12 minutes or up to 24 hours or more, depending on the type of bacteria and the environment, but typically 20 minutes to a few hours.

There are more bacteria in the world than there are grains of sand on all of the beaches of the world (and many grains of sand are covered with bacteria).

They exist in just about any environment: heat, cold, dry, wet, high pressure, low pressure, small groups, large colonies, isolated, much food, little food, much oxygen, no oxygen, in toxic chemicals, etc.

There is much variation in bacteria. There are many mutations (in fact, evolutionists say that smaller organisms have a faster mutation rate than larger ones13).

But they never turn into anything new. They always remain bacteria.

Fruit flies are much more complex than already complex single-cell bacteria.

Scientists like to study them because a generation (from egg to adult) takes only 9 days.

In the lab, fruit flies are studied under every conceivable condition.

There is much variation in fruit flies.

There are many mutations.

But they never turn into anything new.

They always remain fruit flies.

Many years of study of countless generations of bacteria and fruit flies all over the world shows that evolution is not happening today.

Here is how the imaginary part is supposed to happen: On rare occasions a mutation in DNA improves a creature's ability to survive, so it is more likely to reproduce (natural selection).

That is evolution's only tool for making new creatures. It might even work if it took just one gene to make and control one part.

But parts of living creatures are constructed of intricate components with connections that all need to be in place for the thing to work, controlled by many genes that have to act in the proper sequence.

Natural selection would not choose parts that did not have all their components existing, in place, connected, and regulated because the parts would not work.

Thus all the right mutations (and none of the destructive ones) must happen at the same time by pure chance.

That is physically impossible.

To illustrate just how impossible it is, imagine this:
on the ground are all the materials needed to build a house (nails, boards, shingles, windows, etc.).

We tie a hammer to the wagging tail of a dog and let him wander about the work site for as long as you please, even millions of years.

The swinging hammer on the dog is as likely to build a house as mutation-natural selection is to make a single new working part in an animal, let alone a new creature.

Only mutations in the reproductive (germ) cells of an animal or plant would be passed on.
Mutations in the eye or skin of an animal would not matter.

Mutations in DNA happen fairly often, but most are repaired or destroyed by mechanisms in animals and plants.

All known mutations in animal and plant germ cells are neutral, harmful, or fatal.

But evolutionists are eternally optimistic.
They believe that millions of beneficial mutations built every type of creature that ever existed.

This surprising admission is from the evolutionist journal Nature:

"Darwin anticipated that microevolution would be a process of continuous and gradual change. The term macroevolution, by contrast, refers to the origin of new species and divisions of the taxonomic hierarchy above the species level, and also to the origin of complex adaptations, such as the vertebrate eye".

Macroevolution posed a problem to Darwin because his principle of descent with modification predicts gradual transitions between small-scale adaptive changes in populations and these larger-scale phenomena, yet there is little evidence for such transitions in nature.

Instead, the natural world is often characterized by gaps, or discontinuities.

One type of gap relates to the existence of 'organs of extreme perfection', such as the eye, or morphological innovations, such as wings, both of which are found fully formed in present-day organisms without leaving evidence of how they evolved."-- Reznick, David N., Robert E. Ricklefs. 12 February 2009. Darwin's bridge between microevolution and macroevolution. Nature, Vol. 457, pp. 837-842.

There are two versions of evolution.
The first (neo-Darwiniam synthesis) proposed that many tiny changes made new creatures.

But evolutionists are conceding that "major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity."
"The principal 'types' seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization.

No intermediate 'grades' or intermediate forms between different types are detectable."17

They could not find tiny changes between one type of creature and another in the fossil record, so a few evolutionists proposed instead that change occurred by occasional leaps (punctuated equilibrium).

Each hypothetical beneficial mutation could only make a slight change.

Any more than that would be so disruptive as to cause death.

So punctuated equilibrium is not really one leap at a time.

It envisions a lot of slight changes over thousands of years, then nothing happens for millions of years.

Evolutionists say with a straight face that no fossils have been found from a leap because thousands of years is too fast in the billions of years of "geologic time" to leave any.

On the other hand, without fossils there is no evidence that any leaps ever happened, and of course there is no evidence that leaps or gradual changes are happening today in any of the millions of species that still exist.

Evolution is all about constant change, whether gradual or in leaps.

Consider a cloud in the sky: it is constantly changing shape due to natural forces. It might look like, say, a rabbit now, and a few minutes later appear to be, say, a horse.

In between, the whole mass is shifting about.

In a few more minutes it may look like a bird.

The problem for evolution is that we never see the shifting between shapes in the fossil record.

All fossils are of complete animals and plants, not works in progress "under construction".
That is why we can give each distinct plant or animal a name.

If evolution's continuous morphing were really going on, every fossil would show change underway throughout the creature, with parts in various stages of completion. For every successful change there should be many more that lead to nothing.

The whole process is random trial and error, without direction.
]
So every plant and animal, living or fossil, should be covered inside and out with useless growths and have parts under construction.

It is a grotesque image, and just what the theory of evolution really predicts.

Even Charles Darwin had a glimpse of the problem in his day.

He wrote in his book On the Origin of Species: "The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on Earth must be truly enormous. 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 gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."

The more fossils that are found, the better sense we have of what lived in the past.

Since Darwin's day, the number of fossils that have been collected has grown tremendously, so we now have a pretty accurate picture.

The gradual morphing of one type of creature to another that evolution predicts is nowhere to be found.
There should have been millions of transitional creatures if evolution were true.

In the "tree of life" that evolutionists have dreamed up, gaps in the fossil record are especially huge between single-cell creatures, complex invertebrates (such as snails, jellyfish, trilobites, clams, and sponges), and what evolutionists claim were the first vertebrates, fish.

In fact, there are no fossil ancestors at all for complex invertebrates or fish.

That alone is fatal to the theory of evolution. The fossil record shows that evolution never happened.

This tiny fish (a little over an inch long, or 3 cm) is Haikouichthys. Its fossils have been found in the Lower Cambrian, where the first complex creatures suddenly appear in the fossil record. This "first fish" has a spine and spinal chord, eyes, gills, fins, scales, mouth, etc., though no jaw, like a lamprey. About 500 were found buried together.27

This is Guiyu, a fossil fish that "represents the oldest near-complete gnathostome (jawed vertebrate)."31 It measures about 15 inches long, or 37 cm. Clearly, the earliest fish were as much fish as today's fish. Guiyu is "a representative of modern fishes" from the Silurian, before the so-called "age of fishes." (Devonian).7 In the evolutionist's mind, "a whole series of major branching events... must have taken place well before the end of the Silurian." "A significant part of early vertebrate evolution is unknown."7

Coelacanth disappeared from the fossil record with the last of the dinosaurs.

That was supposedly 65 million years ago.

Here it is today, alive and unchanged.

Where is the evolution?

The platypus has a duck-like bill, swims with webbed feet, and lays eggs.

Yet nobody calls it a transitional creature between mammals and ducks.


Archaeopteryx has long been held up as the great example of a transitional creature, appearing to be part dinosaur and part bird.

However, it is a fully formed, complete animal with no half-finished components or useless growths.

That is also the case for the other birds in the evolutionary tree.

Evolutionists just placed some of the many living and extinct species next to each other to make the bird series.

The same is true for the famous horse series. Each of the supposed ancestors is a complete animal. They are not full of failed growths and there are no parts under construction.

There are many more differences between each type of animal than their size and the number of toes. Every change in structure, function, and process would have had to develop through random trial-and-error if evolution were true, but no transitional forms have been found.

The fossils have not caught any changes in the midst of being created, even though they should have occurred over long periods of time.

In the late 1800's, evolutionists simply placed living and extinct species next to each other to make the horse series.

However, evolutionists no longer believe there was the direct ancestry (orthogenesis) shown in this chart...

Evolutionists now imagine it to be this branching bush. Many of the supposed ancestors apparently lived at the same time, especially after Mesohippus.

It is doubtful that Hyracotherium (formerly Eohippus) has any connection to horses.

So the progression of toes is an illusion that was useful when the theory of evolution was first being sold to the public.

Several hundred species are extinct; only one genus, Equus, survives.

You religitards truly are insane. Unfortunately in this country mass stupidity isn't a crime. You are so deluded that you believe scientific fact is an "opinion." Actually I doubt you actually believe half the shit you spew. There's stupidity, and then there's prideful ignorance. The latter is far worse because you will do anything and everything to twist science to fit your dogma, rather than accepting facts that any third grader should know. If tomorrow your leaders told you gravity didn't exist you would believe them. But I digress I will stop now since you won't listen anyway. For some reason I keep trying to educate you idiots knowing that I will fail. Maybe I'm really the stupid one and should stop trying. It's about as productive as bashing my head against the wall.

Do you agree you are interchanging evolution for the word adaptation and vice versa?

Or do you believe that any adaptation actually is evolution?

Could you share some positive mutations found in the Chernobyl zone? Seeing it is in fastforward, the evidence for positive mutations should be abundant.

You religitards truly are insane. Unfortunately in this country mass stupidity isn't a crime. You are so deluded that you believe scientific fact is an "opinion." Actually I doubt you actually believe half the shit you spew. There's stupidity, and then there's prideful ignorance. The latter is far worse because you will do anything and everything to twist science to fit your dogma, rather than accepting facts that any third grader should know. If tomorrow your leaders told you gravity didn't exist you would believe them. But I digress I will stop now since you won't listen anyway. For some reason I keep trying to educate you idiots knowing that I will fail. Maybe I'm really the stupid one and should stop trying. It's about as productive as bashing my head against the wall.

If it were a fact, it wouldn't be called the THEORY of evolution.

You religitards truly are insane. Unfortunately in this country mass stupidity isn't a crime. You are so deluded that you believe scientific fact is an "opinion." Actually I doubt you actually believe half the shit you spew. There's stupidity, and then there's prideful ignorance. The latter is far worse because you will do anything and everything to twist science to fit your dogma, rather than accepting facts that any third grader should know. If tomorrow your leaders told you gravity didn't exist you would believe them. But I digress I will stop now since you won't listen anyway. For some reason I keep trying to educate you idiots knowing that I will fail. Maybe I'm really the stupid one and should stop trying. It's about as productive as bashing my head against the wall.

Read OP's post. Do you see words like "insane", "stupid" and so on? Do you know how to debate? Try the civilized way. Insults just help your opponent look right.

You cannot debate creationists on evolution. They have their own view on what evolution is so anything you provide to them they will just chuck out as it does not match what they think evolution is. They will continue on denying evolution with the same arguments they believe goes against evolution. Like evolution is just a theory, why are there still monkeys if we evolved from them, there are no transitional fossils etc. They do not want to know what evolution is, they stick to their view because they know its wrong and its safe for them.

If you truly believe this statement, you should not be allowed to express an opinion on evolution.

My friend. You yourself, believe in something that you will never see happen. You might even be fortunate to be in a lab and witness them nuking a fruit fly so that it mutates. But it will always be a fruit fly. A mammal jumping from tree to tree does not even know what flying is so what part of it's body switched on its ability to grow wings ?. Was the variables preprogrammed into RNA before even RNA existed?. You tell me pal.

They are not trying to turn fruit flies into non fruit flies. Tetrapod wings are modified arms, same with flippers on whales. I can only assume you mean bats as they are the only winged mammal that can truly fly not just glide. They would have evolved wings for a different purpose than flying, flying would have come after whatever the first primary function was. Gliding would have been before flying. And before gliding there would have been another purpose of wings. A clue may be in the chickens and other winged flightless animals. Every argument creationists have on evolution lies a rebuttal due to creationist ignorance.