- Scientists know of no method for nature to add appreciable amounts of new and beneficial genetic information to an organism's gene pool (genetic kind), i.e. macroevolution.
- No viable evidence of macroevolution exists, i.e. one organism kind changing into another type or kind of organism.
- Micro-adaptations (i.e. microevolution, changes within a genetic kind) always produce the same kind of plant or animal.
- Micro-adaptations result from the sorting or loss of genetic information, i.e. gene depletion.
- Genetic mutations are accomplished by the sorting or loss of pre-existing genetic information, i.e. gene depletion.
- Gene depletion (weaker or decreasing genetic information) occurs over time to an organism's gene pool.
- Gene depletion yields genetic organisms which have decreasing micro-adaptive or survival viability.
- Macroevolution claims the opposite of these seven facts.
The most highly developed manufacturing plant with all of its sensors, processors and computer systems for managing its production process, quality control, resource management, supply and distribution systems, and facility and equipment maintenance is the product of a wisdom and intellect that have developed, designed, constructed, and implemented it using uniquely written and installed computer programs to operate and manage it. In the same way, the cells composed of a central command system of DNA and the RNAs in it coordinating their individual functions which together make up the human being are really the product of a wisdom and intellect who created them as well as what they do individually and collectively. No matter how comprehensive, thorough, unique, striking, elegant or perfect the product is, the wisdom always comes from the owner of the work.
"The beginning needed a Creator. If there ever was a Big Bang - who or what caused it to happen? How can something (a lot, actually everything) come from nothing? Wild theories like the completely unproven evolutionary string theory require a lot more 'faith' than accepting a Creator God. “In this century (twentieth century), science has come to understand how the universe began .... No matter how incredible it sounds, it seems that the church's ideas of a moment of creation were right from the beginning.” (Steven Hawking, perhaps the most famous scientist alive, made this startling admission during the 1997 PBS program, Universe.)" [Emphasis added] Theory of Evolution - True or False?, www.windmillministries.org/theory-of-evolution.htm
Darwin's Sacred Imposter: Natural Selection's Idolatrous Trap
— by Randy J. Guliuzza, P.E., M.D. —
"[T]he student asked what actually does the ‘selecting.’ The evolutionist replied, ‘Environmental stresses.’ The student pointed out that, by definition, ‘selecting.’ something implied volition and was presumptive evidence of intelligence. So how could selection by environmental stresses be any more tangible than selection by the statue in his pocket?"
"I'm saying that those who think they see positive selection, negative selection, or just plain natural selection, never seem to point to any tangible exogenous selector or selecting force to justify using the word ‘selection’—and evolutionists definitely cannot appeal to it as a real force capable of explaining design." "All that purveyors of ‘selection’ do is attribute choice-making abilities to Nature and give it credit for an organism's endogenous capabilities to produce traits that solve environmental problems, enabling them to fit environments and fill them."
The End of Darwinism
— by David A. Noebel —
The Schwarz Report, August 2013 Volume 53 Number 8
"The following 14 arguments posited favoring Darwin's theory of evolution are then followed by the scientific evidence against each one. A finely tuned universe that includes human life is totally contrary to Darwin's theory of chance, natural selection, and mutation.
Why Does Anyone Celebrate Origin of Species?
— by Margaret Helder —
www.create.ab.ca/why-does-anyone-celebrate-origin-of-species/
"It is evident that Darwin's claim to fame was to promote an idea for origins which did not require any supernatural intervention. Some of his arguments were wrong and all were weak and unsupported by evidence. This did not prevent the rapid acceptance of his basic idea. Today Darwin continues to be venerated, not because of any scientific details which he promoted, but because of his philosophical position, which was that natural processes are all that we need to explain and understand how all the wonderful designs of living creatures came to be. Thus Darwin's claim to fame rests not on the quality of his arguments, but on his advocating an idea that the secular world wanted to support anyway.
Laws of Nature vs Evolution
— by Evidence4Creation —
frenz64.wordpress.com/category/evolution-cruncher/page/3/
"NO SELF-MADE LAWS — Evolutionists work on three basic assumptions: (1) laws automatically sprang into existence out of designless confusion, (2) matter originated from nothing, and (3) living things came from non-living things. But just as matter and life did not make Itself, so law did not make itself either.
"‘The naive view implies that the universe suddenly came into existence and found a complete system of physical laws waiting to be obeyed ... Actually it seems more natural to suppose that the physical universe and the laws of physics are interdependent.’ —W.H. McCrea, Cosmology after Half a Century, Science, Vol. 180, June 1898, p. 1287."
"‘Even if one day we find our knowledge of the basic laws concerning inanimate nature to be complete, this would not mean that we had 'explained' all of inanimate nature. All we should have done is to show that all the complex phenomena of our experience are derived from some simple basic laws. But how to explain the laws themselves?’ —R.E. Peierls, The Laws of Nature, (1958), p. 240."
"Evolutionary theory stands in obvious defiance of the Second Law [of Thermodynamics], but the evolutionists declare that this is no problem, for they declare their theory to be above law! They maintain that, yes, the Second Law does indeed apply to all the rest of the universe,—but not to evolutionary operations on our planet. Even though Lord Kelvin developed the law by studying our world, and such great scientists as Einstein declared that the Second Law would never be overthrown, yet the evolutionists are determined to do so. In order to explain away the problem, they tell us that our planet is an 'open system,' not subject to the Second Law which only applies to 'closed systems.'"
"THE LAW OF MANUFACTURE — A law is a principle that is never, never violated. Let us for a moment postulate a couple candidates for new laws: A cardinal rule of existence is this—and we shall call it the Law of Manufacture. We could word the law something like this: 'The maker of a product has to be more complicated than the product:'" "Here is another 'law' to consider. We will call this one the Law of Originator, and describe it in this way: 'The designer of a product has to be more intelligent than the product.'"
About Darwin And His Book
— by Evolution Encyclopedia Vol. 3 —
evolutionfacts.com/Ev-V3/3evlch31c.htm
"I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial ... the sums of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity." Dr. W. R Thompson, Introduction, Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, Everyman's Library Centennial Edition of Darwin, Dent, London, 1956. (Director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Ontario, Canada].
"Darwin made a mistake sufficiently serious to undermine his theory. And that mistake has only recently been recognized as such ... One organism may indeed be ‘fitter’ than another... This, of course, is not something which helps create the organism, ... It is clear, I think that there was something very, very wrong with such an idea." "As I see it the conclusion is pretty staggering: Darwin's theory, I believe, is on the verge of collapse." Tom Bothell, Darwin's Mistake, Harper, February 1978, pp. 72, 75.
"It seems that the standards of the evolutionary theorists are relative or comparative rather than absolute. If such a theorist makes a suggestion that is better than other suggestions, or better than nothing, he feels that he has accomplished something even if his suggestion will obviously not hold water. He does not believe that he must meet any objective standards of logic, reason, or probability." Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 71-78.
Evolution is a Religion!
— by CreationWorldview.org —
www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=89
"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualist accounts of evolution." [Emphasis added] Gould, Stephen J., ‘Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?’ Paleobiology, Vol. 6(1), January 1980, p. 127.""
"Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion ... it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to more evolved. ... Instead of filling the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species." [Emphasis added] Schwartz, Jeffrey H., 'Sudden Origins', 1999, p. 89."
""All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel that it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did."" [Emphasis added] Urey, Harold C., quoted in Christian Science Monitor, January 4, 1962, p. 4."
- See more at: www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=89#sthash.LrRfltPt.dpuf
"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science [evolutionary science] in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen." [Emphasis added] Richard Lewontin, 'Billions and Billions of Demons', The New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997, p. 31.
The Nature and Extent of Criticism of Evolutionary Theory
— by Osman Bakar —
www.worldwisdom.com/uploads/pdfs/140.pdf
"Richard L. Thompson, an American mathematician who specialized in probability theory and statistical mechanics and who has done research in mathematical biology, has argued in his Mechanistic and Non-mechanistic Science: An Investigation into the Nature of Consciousness and Form that the theory of evolution is not actually supported by the factual evidence of biology and natural history. Drawing on ideas from information theory, Thompson shows that configurations of high information content cannot arise with substantial probabilities in models defined by mathematical expressions of low information content.A This means that complex living organisms, which possess a high information content, could not arise by the action of physical-chemical laws considered in modern science, since these laws are represented by mathematical models of low information content. Thompson defines the information content of a theory to be “the length of the shortest computer program that can numerically solve the equations of motion for the theory to within any desired degree of accuracy.”B His fundamental argument is that in a physical system governed by simple laws, any information present in the system after transformations corresponding to the passage of time must have been built into the system in the first place. Random events cannot give rise to definite information, even when processed over long periods of time according to simple laws. On the basis of these fundamental arguments in information theory, Thompson maintains that the existence of a complex order here and now cannot be explained unless we postulate the prior existence of an equivalent complex order or that the information content of the system has been received from an outside source."
Notes:
A. Mechanistic and Non-mechanistic Science: An Investigation into the Nature of Consciousness and Form, Richard L. Thompson, Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, 1981 (Bala Books, New York (1981)), p. 97.
B. Ibid. p. 105.
Tales of “Feathered Dinosaurs” No Longer Deceive Anyone
— by Darwinism-Watch.com —
www.darwinism-watch.com/index.php?git=makale&makale_id=148596
"DARWIN HIMSELF ADMITTED the fact that there are no transitional form fossils. In his book the Origin of Species, Darwin clearly stated, and in a rather foresighted manner, that there existed not a single transitional form fossil and that this represented the greatest possible objection to his theory:
WHY, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, DO WE NOT EVERYWHERE SEE INNUMERABLE TRANSITIONAL FORMS? Why is not all nature IN CONFUSION INSTEAD OF THE SPECIES BEING, AS WE SEE THEM, WELL DEFINED?
INNUMERABLE TRANSITIONAL FORMS MUST HAVE EXISTED, WHY DO WE NOT FIND THEM EMBEDDED IN COUNTLESS NUMBERS IN THE CRUST OF THE EARTH?
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. (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, pp. 172, 280)
Indeed, more than 100 million fossils have to date been unearthed from various strata of the earth. But NOT A SINGLE ONE IS A TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL." [Emphasis in original]
10 Ways Darwin Got It Wrong
by Mario Seiglie
www.ucg.org/science/10-ways-darwin-got-it-wrong/
"The scientific evidence indicates that life did not and could not somehow arise spontaneously from some warm little pond, as Darwin thought. What we find from the evidence around us and from the fossil record is that, as the law of biogenesis states, life can only arise from life."
"What I think the DNA material has done," says Sir Antony Flew of Great Britain, formerly one of the world's leading atheists, "is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce [life], that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together."
"It's the enormous complexity of the number of elements and the enormous subtlety of the ways they work together. The meeting of these two parts at the right time by chance is simply minute. It is all a matter of the enormous complexity by which the results were achieved, which looked to me like the work of intelligence" ( There Is a God , 2007, p. 75)."
"Everything we know about DNA indicates that it programs a species to remain within the limits of its own general type. Genetic changes that do occur are typically small and inconsequential, while large mutations, rather than producing improved and novel designs, are overwhelmingly harmful to the organism's survival."
Fossils Don't Lie: Why Darwinism Is False
by Jonathan Wells
www.evolutionnews.org/2009/04/_why_evolution_is_false019871.html
"In 1978, Gareth Nelson of the American Museum of Natural History wrote: "The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion." (Gareth Nelson, Presentation to the American Museum of Natural History (1969), in David M. Williams & Malte C. Ebach, The reform of palaeontology and the rise of biogeography—25 years after 'ontogeny, phylogeny, palaeontology and the biogenetic law' (Nelson, 1978), Journal of Biogeography 31 (2004): 685-712.)"
"Nature science writer Henry Gee wrote in 1999 that "no fossil is buried with its birth certificate." When we call new fossil discoveries "missing links," it is "as if the chain of ancestry and descent were a real object for our contemplation, and not what it really is: a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices." Gee concluded: "To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific." (Henry Gee, In Search of Deep Time. New York: Free Press, 1999, pp. 5, 32, 113-117.)"
A Finely Tuned Universe
by Dennis Prager
~schwarz-report-2013-08.pdf#page=6
"Unless one is a closed-minded atheist (there are open-minded atheists), it is not valid on a purely scientific basis to deny that the universe is improbably fine-tuned to create life, let alone intelligent life. Additionally, it is atheistic dogma, not science, to dismiss design as unscientific. The argument that science cannot suggest that intelligence comes from intelligence or design from an intelligent designer is simply a tautology. It is dogma masquerading as science."
"And now, many atheist scientists have inadvertently provided logical proof of this."
"Honest atheists—scientists and lay people—must now acknowledge that science itself argues overwhelmingly for a Designing Intelligence."
Footnotes:
1. What is Darwinism?, Charles Hodge, 1874
2. Charles Hodge and His Objection to Darwinism: The Exclusion of Intelligent Design, Matthew Ropp, Winter 1997
List of websites about the collapse of the theory of evolution: Website list.