10 Reasons Why Evolution is Bad Science
(1) No evidence that Macroevolution is occurring now.
We do not observe life forms in all different stages of transition. If evolution has been going on for 600 million years, a natural prediction would be that we would observe millions of life forms in all different stages of transition, into a different life form than what it has been in recent history. We do not observe life forms in all different stages of transition. What we observe is stasis. That is not what we should observe if evolution has been going on for 600 million years.
Different species of birds are not evidence that birds are evolving into something different than a bird. The same could be said for dogs, cats, or any other life form. Small changes within life forms does not prove evolution into a different life form.
(2) Mutations are almost always harmful.
Mutations are what causes the extinction of life forms, not create new ones.
“The mutation may produce a new trait or it may result in a protein that does not work correctly, resulting in structural or functional problems in cells and in the organism.”
(Prentice Hall Biology, 2006, Pg. 296)
Mutations are a series of information losing processes. Will this help you go from simple to complex! (See Dr. Lee Spetner’s book, Not By Chance.)
Evolution requires a positive gain in new genetic information over time. Mutations cause a net loss in useful genetic information over time.
(3) The Limitations of Natural Selection.
Natural selection can only act on those biological properties that already exist. It cannot create properties in order to meet evolutionary or adaptational needs. No one disagrees with the “survival of the fittest.” Here’s the problem. If you have a litter of nine kittens, and one of them is mutated, the mutated kitten is usually less healthy than the others. The eight healthy kittens are more likely to survive than the mutated one. In situations like this, rather than helping life forms to turn into something else, natural selection usually helps them to remain the same!
(4) What did Common Ancestors evolve from?
Common ancestors are not only still “missing links,” but there are no possible ancestors that these “common ancestors” could have evolved from. The need for an ancestor they could have evolved from creates a dead end to evolution.
(5) The Big Bang Theory violates the Laws of Science
An explosion from a state of nothingness, by accident for no purpose, violates the First Law of Thermodynamics, the Law of Cause and Effect, and the Law of Motion or Inertia. A state of nothingness will not change unless acted upon by an outside force or agent.
(6) No evidence that mutations are involved in speciation or adaptation.
There is no scientific evidence that any mutational change is involved in speciation or adaptation. The genetic information required to allow those types of changes appears to be previously built into its DNA, thus allowing those types of changes to happen.
(7) Macroevolution is not observable or falsifiable.
The evolution of one life form into a completely different life form, is not observable, testable, or reproducible science. Falsifiability requires that a theory be testable.
(8) No viable hypothesis for the origin of DNA.
Random mutations cannot generate the genetic information required for irreducibly complex structures, self-replicating systems, and the genetic code.
“There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.”
Werner Gitt (Professor of Physics and Technology), In the Beginning Was Information, 1997, p. 107.
Dr. Charles B. Thaxton, PhD in Chemistry and Postdoctoral Fellow at Harvard University once asked an interesting question:
“Intelligent messages are created only by intelligent beings. An intelligible communication via radio signal from some distant galaxy would be widely hailed as evidence of an intelligent source. Why then doesn't the message sequence on the DNA molecule also constitute prima facie evidence for an intelligent source?”
(9) Fossils Require Sudden Deep Burial
Hundreds of millions of years would be needed to form the rock layers very slowly through natural processes; but fossils are only formed by sudden, deep, burial in water. Just the opposite of evolutionary processes.
In his book: “Why Evolution is True,” ironically, evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne describes how fossil formation takes place: “the remains of an animal or plant must find their way into water, sink to the bottom, and get quickly covered by sediment so that they don’t decay or get scattered by scavengers.” pgs. 22-23 (emphasis mine)
Look at this statement on the Geology Teacher Friendly Guide website:
“Since rapid burial in sediment is important for the formation of fossils, most fossils form in marine environments, where sediments are more likely to accumulate.”
http://geology.teacherfriendlyguide.org/index.php/fossils-mw
Evolution requires hundreds of millions of years. In order for there to be enough time, slow natural processes are needed for the formation of earth’s rock layers and fossils. However, all the rock layers and fossils were formed by sudden, deep, catastrophic processes in water. Slow, natural processes will not produce fossils.
(10) Biogenesis is a Law of Science
In Glencoe Biology, 2006, p. 381 it stated: "Finally, in the mid-1800s, Louis Pasteur designed an experiment that disproved the spontaneous generation of microorganisms. From that time on, biogenesis, the idea that living organisms come only from other living organisms, became a cornerstone of biology." On page 382 it stated: "Biologists have accepted the concept of biogenesis for more than 100 years."
A known law of science states that life comes only from other life. Abiogenesis states that life came from non-life, but it has never been observed, nor produced in a laboratory experiment.
Robert Gange, Ph.D. (research scientist with extensive research in the field of cryophysics and information systems.), Origins and Destiny, 1986, p. 77 stated: "The likelihood of life having occurred through a chemical accident is, for all intents and purposes, zero."