Overcomeproblems.com - Theory of Evolution Disproved

The Theory of Evolution Disproved

Most people today have learned about the "theory of evolution" at some point during their grade school years, and assume this theory is fact. Though most people do not know the details behind this theory, who proposed it, and what evidence the theory has been based on. If anyone stops to take a look at this so-called evidence, they will realize that much of it is not evidence but simply a combination of assumptions and wishful thinking. Below is some information we gathered from different sources on the subject which we feel are true.

The Problem

Throughout the centuries scientists have always argued where life on earth came from. "Creationists" are people who believe we were created by God. People who do not believe there is a God find the idea of life being created by a superior being unthinkable. So these people have been forced to try and think of other possible ways how life could exist on earth in so many different forms (from a single cell all the way up to complex life forms called Homo Sapiens or human beings).

The Theory

In the 1800's scientists normally examined rocks and fossils (or the "fossil record") to determine what life forms existed during different periods in history. At that time several scientists had proposed different theories of evolution which they felt could explain our existence.

Most notable among these men was someone named Charles Darwin who, observing that in some cases plants and animals showed an ascent of increasing complexity in strata (layers of rock and dirt), proposed his own theory of evolution. Charles Darwin assumed the forms higher in the strata physically evolved from the forms lower in the strata. In other words, Darwin was saying that over many many years, small living organisms must have evolved into more complex creatures, which evolved into fish, which evolved into birds, which eventually evolved into larger animals, then into people, all by themselves. Charles Darwin then devised a theory in 1859 which stated that there is always a "struggle for existence" among living creatures and that only the fittest survive. In addition he stated that nature, over long periods of time, gradually selects and promotes features of increasing complexity and usefulness for survival. He called this built in feature "natural selection". Scientists who did not believe in the creationist point of view (that we were created by God), were quick to adopt this new "theory of evolution" (having nothing else to go on at the time), and a battle between the "Creationists" and "Evolutionists" was born. By the year 1900, this new theory was well accepted by a large number of scientists and the battle between both sides was still ongoing.

What the Fossil Records Show

Throughout the 1900's scientists continually studied the fossil records to try and determine if the theory of evolution was really the "fact of evolution". If the theory of evolution were fact, then the fossil records would clearly show the gradual transformations over long periods of time that Darwin spoke of. But despite intense research for over 150 years since the theory of evolution was proposed, no instances of a transitional form have been found in the fossil records. What the fossil records do show is each life form suddenly appearing, full blown, without any apparent relationship to what went before it. Why evolutionists look the other way and call this a lie is incredible. These few quotes on the subject speak for themselves!

As an example, if the theory of evolution were true, then the fossil records would ALWAYS show a smooth transition from one life form to another, such that it would be difficult to tell where invertebrates ended, and vertebrates began. Though this is NOT always the case. Instead, fully formed life forms have been discovered to suddenly jump into the fossil record seemingly from nowhere, with illogical gaps before them where their ancestors should be. Many evolutionists do not dispute this fact, while others look the other way.

Darwin's View On The Gaps In The Fossil Records

Darwin was aware of the gaps in the fossil records though he felt there was more to his theory which explained this. Since human beings can breed living things for special characteristics (i.e. breed sheep for heavier wool, breed horses for extra strength, and roses for color and size), Darwin reasoned that if man could bring about small improvements in living things in such a short period, then nature could surely bring about similar tiny improvements over millions of years in living cells, which could allow them to evolve all the way up to human beings given enough time. In other words, Darwin felt plants and animals could vary to an unlimited degree, and given a time span of say, a hundred million years, it could close all of the gaps in the fossil records. Next we will see that this is not the case.

Breeding Limitations

While Darwin expressed plants and animals could vary to an unlimited degree, breeders were discovering otherwise. They were discovering that even though it was possible to breed a sheep with shorter legs, it was NOT possible to breed a sheep with legs of a rat, or breed a plum the size of a watermelon, or breed a horse with tusks. Each living thing was found to have built in limitations which prevent it from moving too far from the norm. Excessive breeding for a characteristic was also found to either result in a reverse back toward a given average after many generations, or it resulted in dead end species which were unable to reproduce (like the mule which is a cross between a horse and donkey). To date no breeding experiments have ever resulted in major, new traits resulting in a completely new species. Darwin had no answer for this limitation and simply assumed there variations could continue to an unlimited degree without evidence. And that is still the case to this day.

Some evolutionists like to refer to speciation via breeding in plants as proof for evolution. Though breeding experiments in animals and humans has always run into a limitations and has NEVER been shown to produce a brand new species. So breeding cannot be used as proof for evolution.

Some quotes regarding breeding can be seen here.

If Breeding Is Not The Cause Of Evolution, Then Maybe Mutations Are?

Since breeding was found to have limitations, this put a road block in the way of the theory of evolution. Though Darwin also felt that if breeding were not the answer, then mutations might be. In other words, he felt maybe it was possible for forms of life to inherit changes, which could explain changes from one form of life to another over long periods of time.

Mutations Are Typically Harmful, Sometimes Neutral and Are Rare

Creationists and even many evolutionists immediately pointed out that all observed mutations whether laboratory induced or occurring naturally have typically been harmful, or in some cases neutral. Mutations are typically a copying error or mistake, which cause things like disease or monstrosities and put the organism at a disadvantage. In addition, mutations have been discovered to be an extremely rare event since genes have built in functions to stabilize and resist change. So in other words, mutations are rarely seen and when they do occur, they they do not bring out an advantage to any living thing. Evolutionists like to use examples of beneficial mutations in antibiotic resistance to bacteria, or in mutation of the tomato for example, though none of these types of mutations are relevant to any ideas about one kind of creature changing into another. One kind of creature changing into another via beneficial mutation has simply NEVER been shown.

For evolutionists to state that many favorable, random mutations have occurred is completely unfounded. Mutations simply cannot be the cause for evolution into new, healthy, more complex living organisms. Again, many evolutionists simply state this fact is not true, when proof is everywhere. These evolutionists are simply in denial.

Some quotes regarding the mutation theory can be seen here.

If Evolution Didn't Occur Gradually, Maybe It Occurred Rapidly?

Another evolutionist from Harvard named Stephen Gould next proposed a possibility on how evolution could be taking place which he felt may also explain the gaps in the fossil records. He proclaimed that maybe evolution does not occur gradually, but maybe rapidly. He proposed a scheme called "punctuated equilibrium" where he mentioned that maybe it was possible that large populations of species live unchanged for millions of years, then for some unknown reason some of the species become isolated, and by unknown means evolve into new species. Thus this new isolated species would appear suddenly in the fossil records, which would explain the gap before them.

Since there were no other explanations which could logically explain the gap in the fossil records, many evolutionists accepted the "punctuated equilibrium" theory initially.

Punctuated Equilibrium Directly Opposes Laws Of Genetics

Notice that Gould's proposed "punctuated equilibrium" was filled with "what-if's" and was purely speculation. To use an unfounded "punctuated equilibrium" theory to try and explain gaps in the fossil records without providing any proof does not give any more credence to the evolutionist position. Rather, new species suddenly appearing in the fossil records only supports one position; the creationist position. In addition, "punctuated equilibrium" opposes all known rules of genetics. For example, the genetic apparatus of a lizard is devoted 100% to producing another lizard. The idea that such an indescribably complex, finely tuned, highly integrated, amazingly stable genetic apparatus involving hundreds of thousands of interdependent genes could be drastically altered and rapidly reintegrated in such a way that a new organism is actually an improvement over the preceding organism is contrary to all known laws of genetics and is pure speculation and groundless.

It's interesting to see that creationists have always stated that gaps in the fossil records are proof of special creation, and now the evolutionists, with the new "punctuated equilibrium" theory, were starting to say that gaps in the fossil records were evidence of evolution!

In a nutshell, up to this point there is no proof of gradual evolution (over long periods of time), and rapid or sudden evolution is indistinguishable from special creation!

"Natural Selection" Is a Mindless Process

As part of the theory of evolution, Darwin also proposed that each time any organism evolves, every stage must be an immediate advantage to the species because "natural selection" is a mindless process with no idea where it is going, so it cannot plan or conceive an end goal. Creationists immediately argued that how could many organs of the human body, such as the incredibly complicated human eye, develop bit by bit by chance mutation, not knowing it was going to be an eye? Of what use would a half developed eye be? How could each step have been an advantage until the entire eye was complete? How about other parts of a body such as a kidney or jaw? How about the wings of a bird? What good is a half of a jaw or half of a wing? We could give endless examples here.

Some quotes regarding the "natural selection" theory can be seen here.

Is Evolution Occurring Right Now?

Darwin had always stressed that "survival of the fittest" was an underlying component of his theory of evolution. Though evolutionists cannot identify which aspects are important for survival because survival cannot be seen or proved. No evolutionist really knows how "natural selection" really works, or if it is currently working. Neither has a "struggle for existence" been found to exist among plants and animals. Yet evolutionists continue to preach the theory of evolution without any proof for what they are claiming.

The Alleged "Missing Links" between Man and Ape

There have been several claims of fossils found that show evidence between man and ape:

	Neanderthal Man - When the first "Neanderthal Man" was discovered in about 1856, it was thought to be a true link from ape to man. Though well-known biologists such as Virchow and many other scientists and medical authorities since that time have all declared the Neanderthal skull shows signs of severe rickets (a deficiency disease characterized by defective bone growth) which explains why it's appearance is slightly different. Other authorities have also claimed that there have been skulls of modern man found over the last century which look very similar to the Neanderthal Man skull. In addition, there have been instances where the supposed Neanderthal Man bones were put on display in museums and it was later discovered the bones were arranged incorrectly which is what gave it the "hunched" appearance. When this incorrect arrangement was brought to light, it was still left on display as is. More recent finds of remains show Neanderthal Man to have an erect human posture. Quotes regarding Neanderthal Man can be seen here.
	Piltdown Man - The "piltdown" skull first was "discovered" in England in 1912 by Charles Dawson. For Forty-one years it was the leading evidence for evolution until in 1953 it was discovered to be a forgery. It was actually found to be a recent human skull combined with a female orangutan jaw, and was dyed and slightly modified to give it the appearance of age. It's interesting to note how all textbooks before 1953 showed piltdown man in every human's family tree, then one day it was no longer "true". The British Museum has documented other discoveries by Dawson as forgeries as well.
	Java Man - When this was "discovered" in 1891 by Dr. Eugene Dubois, two other skulls were found in the same formation and of the same age which were no different from skulls of modern Australian aborigines. Dubois formed Java man from a chimp-like skullcap, human thigh bone, and teeth, all found within 50 feet of each other and he simply put them together, assuming they were from the same man. Java man was later discredited by the finder himself, Dr. Eugene Dubios, as actually being a gibbon in 1938. Yet despite Dubois recanting, Java man was left in many textbooks. As we can see, many scientists who claim "scientific evidence" may simply be making guesses. True science has no place for guessing.
	Nebraska Man - In 1922 a tooth was discovered in Nebraska by Dr. Henry Fairfield Osborn who examined the tooth and claimed it had characteristics of a man, chimp and Java Man. Years later it was determined the tooth was actually from an extinct pig.

In summary, when bones are found, there is no way for even the best of scientists to state with certainty that they all came from the same being, or what that being looked like, or what type of life that being lived. Yes, educated guesses can always be made, but they will always be guesses.

Other Claims By Evolutionists

There are several other claims by evolutionists over the past 150 years that have been used as arguments in favor of the theory of evolution. Here are a few of them and evidence that they are false:

Vestigial Organs - Organs such as tonsils and appendix were originally thought to be useless vestiges of organs once used by man's ancestors. At one time there were over 100 vestigial organs listed. All have now been shown to have useful functions.

In addition, if there were such a thing as vestigial organs, we would see emerging organs in process of development on extinct and existing life forms, since if evolution is a fact, all organs must have rudimentary beginnings. The complete absence of these emerging organs as passed over quietly by evolutionists.

Another interesting point to be made here is that evolution scientists claim that apes are our closest relatives and that man has vestigial organs that were used once, but are being phased out by evolution. If this is so, then scientists should be able to look at the ape (and other lesser animals) and determine how these vestigial organs were more fully functional. But you'll notice no scientist will touch this subject!

Transitional Forms - Many claim that transitional forms have been found, but this is simply speculation and there is no proof of it. For example, at one time the Archaeopteryx, a fossilized bird-like creature, was used as an example of transition from reptile to bird. This has since been discredited by many since many other birds were since found in the same strata, many birds from that time were found to have teeth, and many known birds existed at that time that could not fly. This is just one example.

From time to time we see other claimed discoveries come forward in the news which are claimed to be a type of missing link. We see many claims that something lived a certain number of years ago, walked a certain way, ate a certain type of food, and breathed a certain way etc, however we can clearly see these are purely speculation on part of the scientist as other scientists often present completely different scenarios. These are educated guesses and none are conclusive.

If transitional forms exist, then they should be commonly found everywhere, across all lifetimes, and in all parts of the world, which even Darwin himself admits is not the case (in the quotes link below). A few educated guesses in our day and age is not going to change this fact!

Also see these quotes from others regarding transitional forms.

Why Have We All Been Taught the Theory Of Evolution as Fact?

Despite the fact that no facts have ever been produced making the "Theory of Evolution" the "Fact of Evolution", many people still blindly cling to it since they do not believe in creation and feel it is the best and only thing they have to go on.

Throughout the 1900's there have been numerous trials regarding teaching of evolution, creationism or both in the public schools. The Creationists have always fought to have the Theory of Evolution taught as THEORY, not fact, since it truly is only a theory to this day. The evolutionists on the other hand have always fought to have creationism NOT MENTIONED AT ALL in the schools. They have always refused to have creationism taught as an alternative to evolution. Since many people group creationism into a religious category, and religion was not to be taught in the public schools, evolution came out on top as what was to be taught to children in the public schools. The crime of the matter is that it is that if it is taught in the schools without mention of creation as a possible alternative, children assume it is fact. In addition, the theory of evolution has been taught as fact in every other branch of knowledge in the world, to the point where you may be laughed at or even refused funding (in the case of scientists) if you do not believe in the theory.

It's been over 150 years since the theory of evolution was proposed and promoted throughout the world, yet to this day we know little more about the origin of species then we did then, and the proofs mentioned above have been thrown out by most evolutionists. And despite all of the facts against each evolutionist argument, the evolutionists continue to grasp at straws and blindly accept a theory which is CLEARLY not fact. Many do this simply because they refuse to believe the alternative (creation), or because they fear to be at odds with their colleagues. Here are some quotes that show how evolutionists cling to the theory of evolution regardless of proof against it.

More quotes on evolution in general can be seen here.

*** Read quotes from Darwin himself shooting down his own theory here

*** If you feel any quotes are out of context, please let us know and we will try to post the entire source through which the quote came.

Conclusion

To determine if the theory of evolution is a fact, one has to look at scientific evidence first, regardless of belief in any religion. All true scientists (creationist or evolutionist) if they are TRUE scientists, study the scientific evidence first and make decisions from there.

Creationists dispute the underlying theories of natural selection, breeding, mutations and other facts above not because of their religious beliefs, but because no scientific research or laboratory observations over the past 150 years have shown these individual sub-theories can possibly be. Once these individual sub-theories are shown to be false, the theory of evolution falls apart. Once the theory of evolution is ruled out as being a possibility based on scientific facts observed, the only thing left that makes any sense is creation.

It is a fact that Darwin and many others who had an initial hand in theories surrounding evolution were known atheists or agnostics. The theory of evolution for them was essential to give them a mechanical explanation of the universe without any spiritual principles. Without the theory of evolution, atheists and agnostics have nothing substantial on which to base things, hence they tend to cling to the theory of evolution, even when presented with facts that show sub-theories like natural selection cannot be. Creationists on the other hand do not have that attachment since when the theory of evolution falls apart, creation still stands regardless.

It is also a fact that many religious people over the centuries who do believe in God, have accepted the theory of evolution and never give it a second thought. Again many assume it is true from what they learned in school, and leave it at that. It is when they discover the sub-theories like natural selection and mutations do not line up, that these religious people can easily discard the theory of evolution since they have their belief in creation to fall back on. It is simply a matter of a person deciding to learn about the theory of evolution in depth and who starts looking into the discrepancies that they realize there is something wrong.

For those that believe in God and in Scripture, many questions arise when discussing the Theory of Evolution. First, if every human being is given a soul by God, at what point during the evolutionary process did God step in and give human beings their souls? And when considering the earliest human beings, were their immediate ancestors non-human without souls?

According to Sir Julian Huxley, an English biologist and author, he declared that "Darwin's real achievement was to remove the whole idea of God as creator from the sphere of rational discussion." What this means is, man, being descended from animals, is thus freed from being answerable for his own behavior. A few results of this are sexual license, the criminal as victim of society, and the Marxian belief that the end justifies and makes "moral" any means."

See the Creation Research website for some good scientific facts from creationist scientists.

As for creationism, what proof is there that we are created? Solid "scientific" evidence is not available, though empirical evidence is plentiful! Belief in the existence of God stems from looking at the abundant empirical evidence we see around us, as seen on our Don't Believe in God? page.