Evolution’s Big Problems, Part 1

I found this question, “did humans evolve from primates (monkeys)?” and I liked the way one of the commentators summed it up:

“1. In the history of scientific research, living organisms have never formed from non-living matter. Evolutionists hold the unscientific belief that this is possible as the first phase of evolution, but they cannot explain, replicate, or prove it can happen.

2. Nothing has ever given birth to something more genetically complex than itself. This is just assumed by evolutionists to be possible. Never before has information been added to the genome of a species.

3. No single-celled organism has ever morphed into a multi-cell organism. Evolutionists firmly believe this can happen as the second phase of evolution, despite the fact that it has never been observed in the history of scientific research.

4. No creature has ever given birth to something that was a different kind of organism than itself. This is again just believed by evolutionists to be possible, although it has never happened in recorded history. Evolutionists believe that over time, lizards change into birds and fish turn into mammals. Yet, of all the billions of lizards on Earth, not a single one is in turning into a bird. Of all the billions of fish on Earth, not a single one is in the process of becoming a mammal.

5. Never in the history of science has any mutation benefitted an animal’s species long term, or made it more genetically complex. Evolution would require billions of these mutations to be happening constantly both today and throughout history, and yet none have ever been observed. All mutations ever witnessed in reptiles, birds, or mammals are either a loss or a scrambling of existing genetic information, and are either neutral or negative to the mutated animal.

6. Transitional species required for the theory of evolution to be true are called “missing links,” instead of “links,” because they do not exist.

7. It is impossible for a cold blooded animal to give birth to a warm blooded animal; and yet this is believed by evolutionists in the fish to mammal and lizard to bird theories.

8. Plants have been around since the beginning of life, and despite all the supposed evolution that should’ve taken place, they have not evolved intelligence.

9. There are no instances of plants morphing into animals.

10. Eyes are far more complex than anything man can create, and yet they’ve been around since the first animals of an evolutionist timescale. In addition, fossils indicate that they’ve always been just as complex as they are today, which means that evolutionists face a fundamental problem. For instance, trilobites had extremely complex eyes, and were supposedly alive long before people according to evolutionist assumptions. Their eyes had two lens layers that allowed everything to be in focus without the need for refocusing, and yet had no spherical aberrations (distortion) because of the precise alignment of the lenses. Chuck Darwin, the founder of the religion of evolution, didn’t even believe eyes could have evolved:

“To suppose that the eye… could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” -Charles Darwin, in ‘The Origin of Species,’ 1859, p. 217

10. Virtually every species of animal has two genders required for reproduction. How this system could have randomly changed from cell division, when it started, and how it manages to be so consistent is inexplicable by evolutionists. I wonder how any species survived before it gained the instinct and ability to reproduce.

11. Nature is full of “irreducible complexities,” or things that could not function if a single part is removed. Since evolution is a gradual and slow process, things like the human knee joint could not have evolved, because they would not function until they were fully formed. If one part/aspect were missing, they would serve no purpose. This is inexplicable by evolutionists.

12. No creature has ever evolved or “adapted” a new body-part to suit it’s environment, despite evolutionist belief, and they do not have the capability to do so. Among the ridiculous claims of evolutionists, one would be the land mammal that evolved into a whale. I’d like to see the transition where the nostrils supposedly change into the blowhole and move to the top of the head, and learn how the hind legs could magically morph into a tail flipper, all while continuing to function for millions of years.

13. Spiders have been found perfectly preserved in amber that supposedly date back “hundreds of millions of years,” according to evolutionist faith-based dating systems. These spiders spin webs, and are no different from today’s modern spiders. If evolution were true, spiders should have changed significantly over millions and millions of years. To the contrary, spiders remain the same spiders throughout the fossil record. How would the first spider gain the ability to spin a web? By accident?

14. DNA has to already be present in order to create protein, and protein has to be present in order to create DNA. Both are required as building blocks of a living organism. Which formed first, randomly, from the primordial soup that may or may not have existed, and how is that possible?”

He sums up by making this observation, which I totally agree with:
“After scientific evidence can be eliminated, it can be concluded that people believe in evolution for [one] or [two] main reasons:

1. Societal/Peer Pressure (“people told me to believe it” or “lots of other people believe it, so I should too.”)
2. Personal Desire (i.e. “if God exists, I have to follow some rules I’m not too fond of”)

Essentially, evolution is a religion. It was concocted over 150 years ago, and they’re still searching for that first shred of evidence. At this point, they seem to have given up on evidence, and instead just combine wild, improvable theories with excuses.”

Read the rest of the article here.

Evolution’s Big Problems, Part 1.
Evolution’s Big Problems, Part 2.
Evolution’s Big Problems, Part 3.
Evolution’s Big Problems, Part 4.
Evolution’s Big Problems, Part 5.

27 Responses to “Evolution’s Big Problems, Part 1”

  1. HackThis says:

    Evolution takes millions or billions of years, of course we won’t see any change any time soon. We’ve only been observing at all for a couple of thousand years and we’ve only been observing properly for less than a hundred years.

    Viruses and bacteria mutate into something more complex then themselves, and algae obviously go from being single celled to multi celled, otherwise no plans would exist.

    Bacteria do not have gender. They reproduce using binary fission but they can also reproduce with another bacteria of a different gene (no one of its own duplicates).

    12: Look at a seal.


    “Essentially, evolution is a religion. It was concocted over 150 years ago, and they’re still searching for that first shred of evidence. At this point, they seem to have given up on evidence, and instead just combine wild, improvable theories with excuses.”


    Can you offer any proof for creation that doesn’t point to anything else?
    (“just look around you” doesn’t work. Evolution might as well have formed what I see when I look around)

    Have you noticed that scientists have stopped listening to fundamentalists like yourself? They don’t even discuss evolution that much anymore. There are more intriguing things like Quantum mechanics. Much more interasting than even considering the idea that the universe was created by a big sky daddy for no apparent reason.

  2. Steve says:

    You’re still not getting it.
    If evolution exist and also takes “millions or billions of years” to happen, then we should have a massive fossil record of intermediate forms and also a massive number of intermediate forms in existence today. We don’t it. It just not happening.
    Mutation is not evolution.
    Show me the intermediate forms where algae is evolving into fully grown plants? Algae is still algae and plants are still plants. Both exist simultaneously.
    What did the seal evolve from?
    Your “lightning = life force” theory falls flat on it’s face here:

    “The Primordial Soup Theory suggest that life began in a pond or ocean as a result of the combination of chemicals from the atmosphere and some form of energy to make amino acids, the building blocks of proteins, which would then evolve into all the species.

    The Primordial Soup Theory states that Life began in a warm pond/ocean from a combination of chemicals that forms amino acids, which then make proteins. This is supposed to happen at least 3.8 billion to 3.55 billion years ago.

    The Russian Chemist A.I. Oparin and English Geneticist J.B.S. Haldane first conceived of this idea. Both developed this theory independently in 1920.

    In this theory, the basic building blocks of life came from simple molecule which formed in the atmosphere (w/o oxygen). This was then energized by lightning and the rain from the atmosphere created the “organic soup”. The first organisms would have to be simple heterotrophs in order to survive by consuming other organisms for energy before means of photosynthesis. They would become autotrophs by mutation. Evidence now suggest the first organisms were autotrophs

    Chemist Stanley Miller and physicist Harold Urey did a famous experiment in 1950 to test this theory. They mixed gases thought to be present on primitive earth:

    Methane (CH4)

    Ammonia (NH3)

    Water (H2O)

    Hydrogen (H2)

    No Oxygen

    They then electrically sparked the mixture to signify lightning. The results were amino acids, the building blocks of proteins. It was later discovered that other energies also can excite gases and produce all 20 amino acids:


    Ultraviolet light



    Problems with theory

    1. Amino acids have to become protein

    a. 1 protein = 100 amino acids of 20 varieties

    b. 10,130 combinations of amino acids

    c. Hard to hit the right protein by accident

    d. Amino acids are building blocks, not the assembled structure

    2. Early atmosphere contain different gases than those used by Miller/Urey

    a. No ammonia and methane

    b. Not reduced (opposite of oxidized)

    c. Experiments with true atmospheric gases did not produce abundant amino acids

    3. 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

    a. System becomes less and less organized over time

    b. Means amino acids cannot form protein spontaneously (more and more organized)

    4. Primordial soup too dilute to achieve anything

    a. Cannot spontaneously generate proteins

    b. No mechanism to concentrate and make protein

    This theory emphasize metabolism because of the cooperative group of molecules and how they gain and use energy and molecules.

    In an experiment by Sidney Fox, heated amino acids drove out water as steam and made peptide chains. They were Proteinoids though, very different from real proteins.”

    And not one of you evolutionist/atheist types has yet to present even one shred of evidence to refute my statistical evidence.

    Can you offer any proof for evolution that doesn’t point to anything else?

    Have you noticed the ever growing number of scientists who are coming out against the theory of evolution?

    What does Quantum mechanics have to do with evolution?

    I think you are a number two.

  3. HackThis says:

    Fine. I admit evolution might be wrong. Still, there is nothing here that points to the existence of god. Just because evolution is false it doesn’t mean that creation is true.
    I don’t mind scientists speaking against evolution, but I don’t take creationist for their crap.

    By mentioning Quantum mechanics I am just trying to make the point that the legitimacy of the theory of evolution is generally not even being debated anymore. It is already widelly accepted as truth, and scientists aren’t goint to look at it again just because the bible says it’s wrong.

  4. Steve says:

    Thanks for your comment.
    If evolution is false, but creation is also false, then how did we get here?
    You said “…the legitimacy of the theory of evolution is generally not even being debated anymore. It is already [widely] accepted as truth, and scientists aren’t [going] to look at it again just because the bible says it’s wrong.”
    I find that to be sad. Whereas I would love for science to embrace the Bible, I don’t need them to. What I find sad is that an amateur, like myself, can poke so many holes into a theory which is accepted as fact by scientist who should know better. It would be nice if they would just state the obvious; that the creation theory has just as much (if not more) credibility as the theory of evolution.
    But I will not hold my breath on this. To admit that the creation theory has as much credibility as the theory of evolution means there is a chance they may have acknowledge God. This is something they will never do. So instead, they remain steadfast to a flawed theory that any amateur can cast serious doubts on.
    As an engineer, I can tell you that most biologist have never invented anything. If they had, they would be familiar with what I call a “design signature”.
    A design signature is a commonality within a design that comes from the inventor as he/she moves from project to project. When there is more than one way to accomplish something, many times, one can tell who invented it by how the solution is reached and implemented.
    My friend, I see a design signature in everything natural. The only way the creator could have made it clearer to us is if he had actually scribed his personal signature on everything that exist in nature.
    For me, I know what his signature says. It says, “made by Almighty God”.

  5. HackThis says:

    The main difference between science and [most of] religion is that science says humans are not in the center of everything, while religion [mainly] says they are.
    Even if science did acnowledge god, scientist would probably label god an “it” not a “him” and it would have nothing much to do with humanity.

    “made by the almighty god”

    he is full of himself isnt he?

  6. Steve says:

    Most religions actually say that God is the center of things.
    I am full of God.

  7. Haden says:

    I completely agree with Steve. We are learning about evolution in school right now. I find it interesting that scientists do so much of their research assuming that evolution is fact. Then why is it called the THEORY of evolution??? And how can we have all of the smart people in they world today that give us the technology that we have if we all evolved from a single-celled organism? It just doesn’t make any sense to me. At all.

  8. Steve says:

    Thanks for the comment!!

  9. skepticalchristian says:

    Oh dear.

    The arguments against evolution presented here are arguments against a falsely claimed version of evolution.

    A few things that have come to mind:
    1) Organs do not have to evolve as a whole. E.g. a cell that can tell the difference between light and dark may not be a whole eye, but could be more useful than no light detection at all.

    2) Any argument that says “it’s unlikely therefore it never happened” is akin to saying “it’s unlikely that someone would ever win the lottery” yet we all know someone wins the lottery almost every week. Evolutionists KNOW the statistics, which is why they propose the massive time-scales that they do (billions of years, not thousands).

    3) Over billions of years, a LOT of fossilized evidence would be lost.

    4) Evolution and biological theory is clear that some species do not evolve further, i.e. have been the same basic way for a long time (e.g. spiders in your example) or bacteria as another quick example. It is also clear that many species have a common ancestor – similar to any descendent species, but not exactly the same as either. So it’s not “humans came from apes” but “apes and humans came from an ancestor that were similar to both, but not quite either.” Oh and by the way, a primate is just a scientific classification. Humans ARE primates, let alone evolved from them, in the same way that we are mammals.

    5) The earth is probably not a few thousand years old. If you believe that with no particular scientific or eye-witness evidence, then of course you would not think there has been enough time passing for evolution to occur

    6) Scientists are clear that in general, as a species, we have been getting taller over time, and that is an example of undeniable natural selection/change that has happened during both living memory and historical records.

    7) Just because there a missing links doesn’t mean none have been found, or even that the theory breaks down. Example. There are approximately 1Billion Christians in the world. Have YOU found them all? Oh, no? Does that mean they do not exist? The 400million you HAVE found – do we then say they “don’t count”, because we’ve not found all 1 billion? etc, etc.

    In terms of evidence for evolution, just TRY and read
    and refute ANY of it, and perhaps we can have a sensible discussion

  10. Steve says:

    Interesting information. Thanks for sharing.

  11. Steve says:

    Did I miss something in the article? It seems to lend just as much doubt to the theory as it does credence.

  12. Starbix says:

    Okay, I couldn’t let the Darwin “eye” misquote go uncorrected. The full quote is this:

    “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility.”

    This is a very common misquoting used to make it seem that Darwin didn’t even believe his own theory. The full quote clearly shows that Darwin did believe that an eye could evolve. Just wanted to clear that up. Thank you for your time.

    “Don’t Panic.” -Douglas Adams

  13. Steve says:

    Where are the intermediate forms? As in all cases of evolution, we should be swimming in massive numbers of both living and dead intermediate forms.
    But we aren’t. Where are they?

  14. Starbix says:

    Look in the mirror. Man is an intermediate form. That is why we have all these useless body parts like the appendix and the coccyx. If we were perfectly created then why do we have wisdom teeth and a muscle attached to our ears that has no useful purpose other than making children laugh (mine love it when daddy wiggles his ears). Aside from us there is also Ambulocetus and Tiktaalik for starters.

    Will you please acknowledge your mistake on the Darwin quote?

    “Don’t Panic.” -Douglas Adams

  15. Steve says:

    “Will you please acknowledge your mistake on the Darwin quote?”

    No, I will not. All shore leave has been canceled. I’ve just had an unhappy encounter with Kubuntu 8.04.02, and I don’t see why anyone else should have any fun.

  16. Starbix says:

    Just don’t make me listen to any of your poetry!

  17. Steve says:

    Afraid that your large intestine will strangle your brain?

  18. Starbix says:

    Nah, I’ll probably just chew my own leg off.

  19. Jason says:

    Your “big problems” have all been solved here.

  20. Steve says:

    Not really…you still can’t explain away the statistical impossibility of spontaneous life.

  21. Jason says:

    That wasn’t listed as one of your “big problems.” But it can also be answered if you wish.

  22. Steve says:

    You didn’t read very well. I addressed the problem here.

  23. Jason says:

    In case you hadn’t noticed, it was dealing with Part 1. Patience, dear Steve, will see your problems in parts 2 through 5 dealt with as I have time, gumption, and patience… 🙂

    I take it, then, you have no problems with the evidence presented refuting the problems in Part 1?

  24. Steve says:

    Haven’t even looked at it yet. Like you, my time is short.
    Liked you better with your beard.

  25. Jason says:

    Men with beards can’t be trusted… Or haven’t you heard? LOL!

  26. Dave says:

    Romans 1:18-23 and 1 Corinthians 2:12-14. The people who quote big name scientists and theories have not themselves verified any of those studies and so are just as guilty as they claim us to be – victims of blind faith taking for truth the claims of others people. I love the fossil skeletons “proving” missing links and the rock-solid theories of science – they are Rorschach tests for scoffers who see what they want to see. I would daresay that I could handpick modern human skeletons which could be passed off as evolutionary missing links.

    However, if Jesus Christ rose from the dead as God’s word claims, then he is the Son of God which means His words are true as contained in scripture. The foolishness [as understood by the natural man] of God is greater than the wisdom of men.

    I love science and it’s very interesting. However, evolution is not exactly science but has become a pseudo-science making unfounded claims based on evidence that cannot be measured but is extrapolated from wild assumptions. Many evolutionists themselves will agree that the belief in evolution is more a faith based on desire than on empirical evidence. In the matter of where we came from, you may put your faith in what men have to say. I will put my faith in God through his Son, Jesus my Christ.

Leave a Reply