Disproving the "Proofs"

It is very simple. Evolution is stupid because there is no evidence of it, and to believe that something as unlikely as life happening accidentally without evidence is stupid. Ok, strong words when so many scientists believe in evolution wholeheartedly. But don't worry, I can back this up.

Let's take a look at some of the supposed "evidences" of evolution.

1. The Fossil Record.
The fossil record is the documentation of animals (particularily their bones), and how they have changed over time. One of the most commonly used examples is the evolution of a horse: they started as Hyracotherium, and changed over time to produce today's modern horse. So basically, one type of horse became another type of horse, proving that we all came from primordeal soup. A horse came from a horse. This appears to be the case, when dealing with all species: they have a common ancestor that shares genetic makeup (ie - chromosomes), and when you breed them with other variants for long enough, they become.......another variant of the same species. No matter how many times you breed them, they will always, always, be the same species as the original. No new information is added.

Hyracotherium

There is also the fact that there are no transition forms anywhere to be found in the fossil record (except for a few misshapen skulls claimed to be the transition between ape and man...However these can be explained by severe arthritis. There have been living people found with similar skull structures with severe arthritis, usually in remote, undeveloped areas where arthritis medication is not available). There are no fossils found that even remotely resemble a transitional stage, even though (according to evolution) there would have had to be millions of years of development and slow change in between stages. What could possibly explain these large gaps? Nothing, if you are an evolutionist.

2. Natural Selection.
Natural selection is what occurs when there is a change in the environment, and a species must adapt to survive in that environment. This can also be known as micro-evolution. Two common examples are the peppered moth and Darwin's finches. The peppered moth used to be white, in order to camoflage itself as lichens to avoid predators. This worked well for the moth, until the industrial revolution. Pollution created by factories in the revolution caused tree bark to darken, and lichens to die. At this point in time, black peppered moths were observed to have increased in number (catching peppered moths was a popular hobby for the wealthy during that time period, and the change was noted). This is one of the most frequent examples of natural selection used to prove evolution, but it has one great flaw: Black peppered moths have always existed. Say, that's right, but weren't they selected against before the industrial revolution, but selected for after the revolution? Yes, you might see it that way, but no matter how you slice it, No new information was added. Oh, and just as a matter of interest, the peppered moth is now so rare that for some textbooks to use it as an example, they must glue the dead bodies of peppered moths to tree trunks in order to get good pictures. Sounds like the adaptation didn't work out as well as it was supposed to...

The second most frequently used example of natural selection is that of Darwin's finches. In dry spells that last more than the finch's life, the finch must obtain a larger beak to crack the tough seeds that are their only food source for that time. I do not think I need to go into the details of it, as it is essentially the same as the pepper moth above, with the important observation that No new information is added

3. Embryology
Embryology used as an evidence of evolution basically means that most animals have the same structure when in embryo form, such as gill pouches, which develop into completely different structures when they mature, such as gill pouches becoming gills in fish and parts of the lungs in humans. This similarity is supposed to suggest that we all came from a common ancestor, however this depends on your perspective. Why could it not also point towards a common creator? Let us examine two of Van Gogh's paintings as an analogy:

Road with Cypress and Star

Starry Night

Note the similarity in style (brush strokes, use of lighting, etc). Does this mean that one painting came first, and over time, the other one accidently appeared, piece by piece? Highly unlikely. So why, then, does similarity in embryos point scientists to believe that humans came about piece by piece, over time, from the original lifeform, instead of being created by the same artist that created the other species? And, perhaps most importantly, embrology demonstrates, if anything, a lack of new information.

The Most important reason why Evolution Is Stupid:

It requires the addition of new information, with no source. In case you haven't noticed, I have been "subtly" hinting at the idea that no new information is created in any of the processes that supposedly prove evolution. Information is like energy and matter: IT CANNOT BE CREATED OR DESTROYED. It can be manipulated in many wonderful ways, but information cannot be created, only discovered and manipulated. Evolution requires the creation of information, from nowhere.

Think of this analogy: Which requires more information to work, a car or a human? Well, humans, obviously. A single cell of the human body contains more information than all the cars on Earth put together. Evolution suggests that humans came to exist naturally, with molecules accidently bumping into each other until life is created. Evolution also says, though, that the simpler must come before the complex (for instance, you cannot have life without a habitable planet to put it on). Holding to this theory, cars should have come before human beings. Cars? Form naturally? What an absurd idea! That would never happen. I've lost my mind.
No, I haven't lost my mind, but because of a car's relative simplicity when compared to one single cell of the human body, the odds are much more likely for a car to form naturally than a human. Why, then, do people condemn naturally forming cars as an absurdity, but still accept the idea that the infinitely more complex human body could form naturally? Beats me.

But all of these arguments are just disproof of the evidence of evolution. click here to read about the disproof of evolution as a whole, not just its evidence.

Back to top

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws