Top Ten

Scientific Facts Proving Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution is Wrong, False, and Impossible

Author(s):  "Evolutionary Fraud from Piltdown, England"

I have a bit of a suspicion that this is not the author's real name

The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or a law of biology.
Not a good start: the author is displaying utter ignorance of the meaning of "law" in science
A scientific law must be 100% correct.
Flatly false, and for the reason given above
Failure to meet only one challenge proves the law is wrong.
Flatly false, and for the reason given above
This web page will prove that the Theory of Evolution fails many challenges, not simply one
We will have to suspend judgement on this, but given the start it does not look likely
The Theory of Evolution will never become a law of science because it is wrought with errors.
Utter nonsense! Evolutionary theory is not "wrought with errors" (does the author mean "fraught with errors?) - certainly not according to the scientists who know anything about iyt.
This is why it is called a theory, instead of a law.
Another display of profound ignorance
The process of natural selection is not an evolutionary process.
Flatly false. Natural selection is an integral element in the process of evolutioon
The DNA in plants and animals allows selective breeding to achieve desired results. Dogs are a good example of selective breeding. The DNA in all dogs has many recessive traits. A desired trait can be produced in dogs by selecting dogs with a particular trait to produce offspring with that trait. This specialized selective breeding can continue for generation after generation until a breed of dog is developed.
Quite so.
This is the same as the "survival of the fittest" theory of the evolutionists.
Flatly false. It is selective breeding.
Many different types of dogs can be developed this way, but they can never develop a cat by selectively breeding dogs.
True, but also a display of abject and utter ignorance of evolution. If a dog gave birth to a cat it would FALSIFY evolutionary theory!
Natural selection can never extend outside of the DNA limit.
What "DNA limit"?
DNA cannot be changed into a new species by natural selection.
More abject ignorance. DNA is not a species. It is the DNA which produces the phenotype, and it is the phenotype which is a species.
The same process of selective breeding is done with flowers, fruits, and vegetables.
Quite so. It's one of the lines of evidence Darwin used to develop his theory of evolution by natural selection
New variations of the species are possible, but a new species has never been developed by science.
Flatly false. There are numerous examples of new species being produced by artificial selection in the scientific literature
In fact, the most modern laboratories are unable to produce a left-hand protein as found in humans and animals.
They haven't? Where is this recorded?
Evolutionist fail to admit that no species has ever been proven to have evolved in any way.
"Evolutionists" "fail to admit" this because it is a flat falsehood
Evolution is simply pie-in-the-sky conjecture without scientific proof.
Another flat and blatant falsehood. Natural selection is a process we can observe in action in the natural world, and track even to the level of individual mutations.
If natural selection were true, Eskimos would have fur to keep warm, but they don't.
Why? More utter ignorance.
They are just as hairless as everyone else
Quite so. That's because humans have evolved only recently, and because we wear clothes
If natural selection were true, humans in the tropics would have silver, reflective skin to help them keep cool, but they don't.
Flatly false and profoundly ignorant.
They have black skin, just the opposite of what the theory of natural selection would predict.
Flatly false. Natural selection does not "predict" anything: it is a process, not a theory
If natural selection were true humans at northern latitudes would have black skin, but they have white skin instead, except the Eskimos who have skin that is halfway between white and black.
More ignorant nonsense
Many evolutionists argue that melanin is a natural sunscreen that evolved in a greater amount to protect dark-skinned people who live near the Equator.
Quite so. That's because melanin protects against sunshine
They simply ignore the fact that dark-skinned Eskimos live north of the Arctic Circle.
Flatly false
Melanin in the skin is not a sound argument in favor of evolution.
More empty assertion
Empty assertion
Dark-skinned people have always lived near the Equator, not white-skinned people, even though the dark skin is more uncomfortable in the hot, sunny climate
It is? Perhaps the author has experienced being dark-skinned in a hot climate
Black skin absorbs the heat from the sun's rays more than white skin.
It also protects against the sun's energy
Humans show no sign of natural selection based on the environment.
Flatly false. For example, humans living at high altitudes have evolved mechanisms to cope with low oxygen levels
The theory of natural selection is wrong because it cannot create something in the DNA that wasn't there in the beginning.
More abject ignorance. Natural selection acts on variation in the genetic makeup of populations of organism introduced by mutation and other mechanisms such as lateral gene transfer
Animals like bears, tigers, lions, and zebras living near the equator have heavy fur while humans living north of the Artic Circle have bare skin.
Humans wear clothes. Other animals don't. Perhaps there's a clue there
Grossly ignorant
A leopard from the jungle near the equator has fur like the snow leopard of the Himalayas.
No it doesn't. It has much thicker fur
The snow leopard grows thicker hair but the jungle leopard would also if moved to a cold climate.
Make your mind up! It would? And the support for this assertion is....?
Horses and dogs grow a heavy winter coat in colder climates. Natural selection isn't working as falsely claimed by Charles Darwin.
Seasonal variation in fur thickness has not bearing whatsoever on the fact that natural selection occurs
The cheetah in Africa is an example of an animal in the cat family with very limited variety in the DNA. Each cheetah looks like an identical twin. The cheetah DNA is so identical that the skin from one cheetah can be grafted into another cheetah without any rejection by the body.
Quite so. That's because they went through a population bottleneck a few thousand years ago. I fail to see what point the author is making.
The following proofs will show that evolution is not a scientific fact.
From the content of the article so far, I doubt it
The reverse will be proven.
From the content of the article so far, I doubt it
Evolution is scientifically impossible.
Flatly false. Evolution is a phenomenon of nature we can observe in action in the natural world and replicate in the laboratory
Evolution is simply a theory that was developed one hundred forty years ago by Charles Darwin, before science had the evidence available to prove the theory false.
More ignorant bullshit. Evolution is a phenomenon of nature whose reality had been accepted long before Darwin's time. Darwin proposed a mechanism for evolution which has been supported by 150 years of scientific research
His famous book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, has a title that is now known to be scientifically false.
Another confused, ignorant and false assertion
Modern scientific discoveries are proving evolution to be impossible.
A flat and blatant falsehood.
Modern scientific discoveries are proving evolution to be impossible.
Another flat and blatant falsehood.
Life did not start with a bolt of lightning striking a pond of water as claimed by evolutionists.
Another flat and blatant falsehood. No scientist has ever proposed such a scenario for abiogenesis
That is pure childish fantasy.
..and it's a creationist fantasy
Evolution is simply a myth.
No matter how many times this falsehood is repeated, it remains a falsehood
Children believe the Theory of Evolution because they have been brainwashed by the education system.
If that is the case, they have been very badly taught. No scientist "believes in" evolutionary theory any more than they believe in gravitational theory. Those are explanations for how phenomena of nature work, and are accepted or rejected on the basis of evidence.
Kids are taught that life can evolve given enough time.
Not in any reputable educational establishment. What they should be taught is the consensus view of scientists who have studied the subject, which is that populations of organism evolve in response to changes in their environment
This is a false statement without any scientific support.
Again, no matter how many time this falsehood is repeated it remains a falsehood
They are taught that if given enough time, a monkey at a typewriter could punch keys at random and eventually type President Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.
Perhaps, but this is utterly irrelevant to biological evolution
This is nonsense.
Well, actually no - given enough time
These government-educated kids actually believe this nonsense.
The government does not educate people. It employs teachers who have the relevant training to educate them in establishments called "schools"
Just ask one of them. Time does not make impossible things possible.
Quite so. The point?
As an example, a computer was programmed in an attempt to arrive at the simple 26-letter alphabet. After 35,000,000,000,000 (35 trillion) attempts it has only arrived at 14 letters correctly. What are the odds that a simple single cell organism could evolve given the complexity of more than 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations all in the correct places?
The "odds" are irrelevant because nobody has ever proposed that the first cell originated by the random accumulation of atoms
Never in eternity!
Actually, given infinite time any event no matter how improbable will certainly occur
Time does not make impossible things possible.
No, but if by "eternity" the author is referring to infinite time, events for which there is any possibility at all will occur.
Don't believe that nonsense.
I suggest that this should be aimed at the author of this article rather than the science which is so ignorantly attacked
Evolution is a Religion - the Worship of a Make-Believe Time-god.
Supporters propound upon the Theory of Evolution as if it has scientific support, which it does not
Flatly false. Evolutionary theory is based on mountains of evidence from several different branches of the science of biology, as any decent textbook on the subject should make clear
Evolutionists switch tactics when they are pressed against the wall with solid scientific proofs against the Theory of Evolution, as presented below.
Flatly false. "Evolutionists" will identify the distortion, misrepresentation and outright falsehoods in these supposed "proofs"
They back off stating that evolution is "only a theory."
No, they don't. They explain that evolution is a phenomenon of nature and that evolutionary theory is an explanation of how evolution proceeds. They wouldn't refer to it as "only a theory" because that misrepresents the meaning of the word when it comes to science.
Using this flip-flop approach they try to have it both ways
Flat and blatant falsehood. Evolutionary biologist don't "flip-flop" because unlike the author of this trash they understand the science involved
Using this flip-flop approach they try to have it both ways
Flat and blatant falsehood. Evolutionary biologist don't "flip-flop" because unlike the author of this trash they understand the science involved
They claim scientific support when none exists,
...apart from all that inconvenient support from DNA, comparative anatomy and the fossil record...
and they claim it is "only a theory"
which is a blatantly lie because is it creationists who insist that it is "only a theory"..
when their beliefs are proven to be outlandish, impossible conclusions that violate scientific truths
..which is not how scientists behave, but how creationists behave
Evolutionists simply ignore reality, slink into denial, and walk away when presented with the scientific facts listed below.
Which is clearly false, as is demonstrated by the fact that they address the evidence and don't "slink into denial" as creationists do
The human mind has a very detrimental character weakness. Humans would rather believe an error for the rest of their lives than admit they had been wrong.
Quite so. This describes perfectly the behaviour of creationists
People who believe in evolution have been brainwashed.
Setting aside the fact that people don't "believe in" evolution, the simple fact is that evolution is a phenomenon of nature. To accept that it occurs is simply acceptance of reality
Their main problem is not the arguments for and against evolution and creation. Their problem is they can't bring themselves to reject evolution, because they have already rejected God.
One of the more offensive falsehoods promoted by creationists. There are many people, including both Christian clergy and evolutionary biologists who see no conflict between accepting the findings of science and their faith.
Humans have a big mental fault. They are not able to admit they were wrong.
True, but once again, a description of the behaviour of creationists, not evolutionary biologists
Let's skip a load of ranting about the educational system and so on.
Scientific Fact No. 1 - Birds Prove Natural Selection is Naturally Wrong.
The body and soul of Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution was his idea that evolution was made possible through natural selection. This concept is based on the suggestion that those members of a species that are a little stronger, a little larger, or run a little faster will live longer to procreate offspring with these superior adaptations. Darwin's theory suggests that millions of generations later the changes will result in new species.
Surprisingly accurate
These adaptations are called links or intermediates between the old species and the new.
...but unsurprisingly, this is flatly false. Those intermediates are species in their own right. What they represent is that such intermediate forms are biologically viable.
The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer. The deer that can sense danger the quickest and run the fastest are able to escape the predator on a more consistent basis.
Quite so
However, other examples on the "evolutionary tree" have many laughable flaws.
..which we will no doubt find are utter bullshit...
Unsupported assertion
One of the best examples of evolution nonsense is the thought that a wingless bird began to evolve a wing.
Which, as birds have evolved from theropod dinosaurs is not an example of "evolution nonsense" but an example of "creationist ignorance"
Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists.
Flatly false. There is a considerable body of scientific literature on the subject of the origin of flight in birds
The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable to his environment.
Theropod dinosaurs did not have "wing stubs". They had forelimbs. Is the author seriously suggesting that wings appeared as a completely new structure independent of any other anatomy
Grossly ignorant
The first wing stubs would be much too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve wing stubs that are useless?
A question which has been addressed in numerous scientific papers
Empty rhetoric
This is backwards from the evolutionary theory of natural selection, which states that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment
Which is the basis on which scientists are investigating the origin of flight.
The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment. Why would the bird continue for millions of generations to improve a wing stub that is useless? The Theory of Evolution is based on natural selection of the most adaptable member of a species, not the weakest. A bird with a useless wing is at a severe disadvantage
More empty rhetoric which demonstrates nothing other than the ignorance of the author
Empty rhetoric
his is the opposite of natural selection. According to natural selection, the members of the bird species with the smallest useless wing would be the most adaptable and most likely to survive in the largest numbers. According to the theory of natural selection birds could never evolve to fly. Evolution is simply nonsense. This is so funny.
More empty rhetoric which demonstrates nothing other than the ignorance of the author
Empty rhetoric
We are then led to believe that some birds got tired of carrying around a worthless half-size wing, so they grew fingers on the end to help climb trees.
No, "we" are not. This is utter nonsense. Theropod dinosaurs had fingers. There are intermediate forms in which the fingers are reduced. In modern birds they are in most cases lacking.
The wings became arms and a new species was developed. Evolutionists actually believe this nonsense.
As this is exactly the opposite of what evolutionary biologists have concluded by studying the evidence, it demonstrates yet again the utter ignorance of the author
The theory of "natural selection" is the basis and foundation for the Theory of Evolution. The existence of birds literally destroys the theory of natural selection, sending the Theory of Evolution crashing like Tweety Bird below. The rest of this page stomps and grinds into dust the failed Theory of Evolution.
More ignorance and empty rhetoric
Evolutionists say birds grew hollow bones for less weight in order to fly.
No, they say that theropod dinosaurs had hollow bones and that as birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs they have hollow bones
How would a bird pass this long-term plan to the millions of generations in order to keep the lighter bone plan progressing? The idea that birds or anything else has million-generation evolutionary plans is childish. The evolutionary concept of growing a wing over millions of generations violates the very foundation of evolution, natural selection.
More ignorance and empty rhetoric
Birds aren't the only species that proves the theory of natural selection to be wrong. The problem can be found in all species in one way or another. Take fish for example
"Fish' are a species? Creationist ignorance knows no bounds!
We are told by evolutionists that a fish wiggled out of the sea onto dry land and became a land creature. So let's examine this idea. OK, a fish wiggles out of the sea and onto the land, but he can't breathe air.
...unless of course the fish already breathes air - as is the case with some of the most primitive fish such as lungfish.
This could happen. Fish do stupid things at times. Whales keep swimming up onto the beach where they die.
Whales are fish?
Do you think the whales are trying to expedite a multi-million generation plan to grow legs? That concept is stupid, but let's get back to the fish story. The gills of the fish are made for extracting oxygen from water, not from air.
...apart from the air-breathing fish which DNA evidence shows are closest to tetrapods
Do you think the whales are trying to expedite a multi-million generation plan to grow legs? That concept is stupid, but let's get back to the fish story. The gills of the fish are made for extracting oxygen from water, not from air.
...apart from the air-breathing fish which DNA evidence shows are closest to tetrapods
He chokes and gasps before flipping back into the safety of the water. Why would he do such a stupid thing? This wiggling and choking continues for millions of generation until the fish chokes less and less. His gills evolve into lungs so he can breathe air on dry land, but now he is at risk of drowning in the water. One day he simply stays out on the land and never goes back into the water. Now he is a lizard. If you believe this evolutionary nonsense, you need psychiatric help.
More ignorant and empty rhetoric
Empty rhetoric
Giant dinosaurs literally exploded onto the scene during the Triassic period.
"Literally exploded", eh? Is that why we find their bones scattered so widely?
Triassic dinosaurs were not giants
The fossil record (petrified bones found in the ground as at the Dinosaur National Park in Jensen, Utah, USA) shows no intermediate or transitional species.
Flatly false. The fossil record of dinosaurs contains numerous intermediate forms
Where are the millions of years of fossils showing the transitional forms for dinosaurs?
In museum and university collections all over the world
Empty rhetoric
They do not not exist, because the dinosaurs did not evolve.
Flatly false
By now, I'm quite frankly too bored with this ignorant and dishonest nonsense to carry on.