Evidence Against Evolution, Revealing Scientific Speculation

Last updated on December 3rd, 2023

Evidence against evolution, obtained through scientific studies, is downplayed or disregarded.  At the same time, arguments based on speculation are promoted as factual evidence of evolution.

Evidence Against Evolution - Archaeopteryx

Archaeopteryx – claimed to be evidence of evolution from dinosaurs to birds

These issues are covered here in the following areas:

Evolution and the speculation behind it

Evolution is the most widely accepted explanation of our existence, being the only theory that is agreeable to modern man. Arguments as to whether or not there is evidence of evolution are pointless, as there are two main scales: ‘microevolution’ and ‘macroevolution’.

Both scales of evolution are claimed to share the same processes, with the only difference being the time scale between them.  This ignores one fundamental issue: microevolution is based on conclusive evidence, whereas macroevolution is based on speculation.


There is conclusive evidence of microevolution.  This is where organisms adapt and change in various small ways (e.g. colour, size and shape).  This level of evolution occurs when existing genetic information is altered, and the changes are passed on through natural selection.

Evolution at the species level is observable, as the changes occur during a short time period.  Such changes sometimes result in organisms being classified as new species.  For example, the Italian sparrow is a hybridisation between the house sparrow and Spanish sparrow.  The changes are limited, affecting only the existing structure and functionality of an organism, and are not significant (i.e. a sparrow remains a sparrow).


There is no conclusive evidence of macroevolution.  This is the belief that organisms can evolve into a different kind of species on a large scale (e.g. fish to mammals).  Rather than only altering existing genetic information, this process would require the development of new genes with new functionality.

Evolution above the species level is not observable, as the changes would occur over millions of years. The only evidence claimed to support evolution above the species level is based on similarities between organisms (e.g. similarities of fossils, DNA, or anatomical similarities between species).

Speculative evidence of evolution through genetic mutation and natural selection

Some changes in organisms are due to the mutation of genes. In this situation the DNA sequence is altered, affecting elements within an individual gene or sometimes several genes. Such mutations occur in a single organism, and any hereditary mutations are passed on via natural selection.

Other changes are known as epigenetic modifications. In this situation the DNA sequence remains the same, but environmental changes (e.g. diet, stress, pollution, etc.) result in the addition or removal of chemical tags. The tags determine which genes should be switched on or off, and at what intensity they are expressed. These modifications can affect multiple organisms simultaneously, and are passed on via natural selection.

Genetic mutation is claimed to be the main mechanism behind evolution.  Although mutation does lead to change on a microevolutionary scale, there is no conclusive evidence that it can lead to macroevolution.  Rather than organisms developing new genes with new functionality, genetic changes that occur are due to the loss or inactivation of existing information, or re-activation of existing information.

When organisms adapt to a new environment, through natural selection, they lose genetic diversity. In this situation, genes that are beneficial in other environments can be bred out. This means that the organisms lose the ability to adapt to changes in their environment.  Loss of genetic diversity also increases the likelihood that organisms will suffer from health problems.

The peppered moth and Darwin’s finches are claimed to provide observable evidence of evolution.  While seeming to provide indisputable evidence on the surface, under scrutiny these cases are revealed to be inconclusive.

The peppered moth, native to Britain, is naturally a light grey colour, peppered with specks of black. This colour is the perfect camouflage for the moths in their natural environment. During the Industrial Revolution of the 1800s, pollution increased, turning the environment black from soot. Years later, it was noticed that the moths had become almost black, matching their new environment.  This was claimed to be evidence of evolution, and that the moths changed colour to hide from birds.

A loss of function mutation was later discovered in the moths DNA.  This caused pigments in the wings to become darker (melanism). Any moths having this mutation would originally have been more vulnerable to predation, as they would be more visible. Due to the environment being darker, moths that blended into a dark background had a higher survival rate, passing on their genes via natural selection.

The Clean Air Act of 1956 cut pollution levels dramatically.  Years later, the environment changed back to its natural, lighter colour. Eventually, the peppered moths also began turning back to their original colour. This is nothing more than natural selection, and no new information was added to the gene pool through the mutation.

Darwin’s Finches became separated in different habitats, with different food supplies. Those in the new location developed different behaviour and different beaks.  This was claimed to be evidence of evolution.

It was later discovered that the changes were brought about by epigenetics, and the change in beak size was due to an inactivated gene.  Birds with the new beak size became the fittest, being best suited to the new food source. Through natural selection the original variation was bred out. Although considered separate species, Darwin’s Finches are still birds, and they are still finches.  Again, no new information was added to the gene pool through the genetic changes.

Unless they find that their environment has altered, and natural selection plays a part, organisms don’t often change. On the other hand, domesticated creatures frequently change. There are many different breeds of livestock — which have been bred specifically by man, taking advantage of microevolution via artificial selection. Rather than fitness and environment playing a part in the adaptation of the species, livestock are selectively bred in order to increase the amount of wool, milk or meat that can be obtained.

One issue with artificial selection is that it often causes loss of genetic diversity and inbreeding.  Selective breeding has brought about many detrimental effects in animals, meaning that they do not perform well in the wild.

Many animals that have undergone selective breeding have trouble giving birth, meaning that they frequently require assistance.  Whereas wild sheep shed their wool naturally, selective breeding has prevented domesticated sheep from shedding their wool, resulting in the requirement of shearing.

Dog breeds have changed vastly over the years, causing many to look nothing like their original form. While dog breeders find the new appearance appealing, selective breeding has introduced many health defects, resulting in a great deal of suffering for specific breeds.

There is no doubt that organisms do evolve naturally on a small scale; however, evidence shows us that such evolution is limited.  We find no observable evidence of a fish changing into anything other than a fish.  There is no conclusive evidence that any organisms have evolved into any other kind than what they originally were.

Speculative evidence of evolution in the fossil record

Fossils of simple organisms are found in the lowest rock layers, and become more complex with each higher layer.  This is claimed to be evidence of evolution, revealing the transition of one kind of organism to another.

All that the fossil record really reveals is that stratified layers of sediment were laid down in order, and organisms were buried during each stage.  Fossilisation requires rapid burial in sediment and water (i.e. mud). This would indicate that each layer was formed far more quickly than the millions of years evolution requires.

If a global cataclysmic flood occurred, we would find that organisms were buried in sediment in a similar order, but far more rapidly.  Organisms that lived on the ocean floor would be buried in massive layers of sediment first.  Other sea creatures would be buried after, followed by creatures that lived on land.

While many fossils are considered transitional forms, such claims are based on speculation.  Some supposed transitional fossils could be the same organism at different stages of life, or separate species of the same kind.  All claims of transition in fossils are based on similarities, but similarities do not provide conclusive evidence of evolution.

Some fossils previously claimed to be transitional forms (e.g. those referred to in the evolution of the horse) were later discovered to persist unchanged throughout the same time line.  This proves that the separate organisms lived together, rather than one evolving into another.  Evidence such as this reveals the level of speculation involved in claims related to transitional fossils.

There are several organisms once thought to be extinct that are still alive today, showing no evidence of evolution. These are what are known as ‘living fossils’. One example is the coelacanth, a fish that is claimed to have first appeared in the fossil record during the Devonian Period (around 400 million years ago).  Based on the youngest fossil discovered, it was believed to have become extinct around 65 million years ago.

The coelacanth is in a class of fish named Sarcopterygii, which are lobe-finned fish.  They have paired fins that contain muscle, which are joined to the body via a single bone. Fossil evidence of the coelacanth revealed four fins containing leg-like bones, and it was assumed that it could walk on its fins.  It was claimed to have evolved full legs, and that it was a missing evolutionary link between fish and amphibians. This was first published as a fact in biology textbooks in the early 1900s.

In 1938, a surprise discovery revealed that coelacanths were still alive, and that they were relatively unchanged from their fossilised ancestors.  They were revealed to be deep-sea fish that would rarely go anywhere near land.  It was evident that their fins were only used for swimming, and certainly would not be able to provide any form of support or movement on land whatsoever.  This is further proof of the high level of speculation in claims related to fossils.

In 2004, a fossil of another fish in the class Sarcopterygii was discovered, named Tiktaalik. This was claimed to have lived during the Late Devonian Period (around 375 million years ago).  Although it had gills, it is claimed that it also ‘possibly’ had a primitive form of lungs, similar to lungfish, and that it could walk on its fins.

In many articles on lungfish, it is claimed that they walk on their fins. This description is misleading. Both the coelacanth and lungfish are known to use their fins in a walking movement along the sea floor, supported by water; however, neither has the ability to prop itself up or walk on land.

As scientists have made claims that Tiktaalik could walk on land, this shows a blatant disregard of observable scientific evidence.  Although similar, speculative claims related to the coelacanth were proven to be false, those related to Tiktaalik are still upheld.

Original claims regarding the pelvic girdle of Tiktaalik suggested that its structure would support it while on land.  Further analysis has shown this to be false, due to the lack of sacral ribs.  In addition to this, its fins were discovered to be fish-like, and would not support movement on land either.  Even with no evidence to back it up, Tiktaalik is still claimed to be a link in the evolution from fish to amphibians.

Although the fossil of an organism may only have been discovered in a specific layer, this does not signify that it only lived within the time line the layer represents. As with the coelacanth, the organism may have lived for millions of years without having left any fossils at all, and it may not have changed in any significant way over the millions of years it is unaccounted for. For this reason alone, it is obvious that any claims of fossils showing transition between species are based purely on speculation.

At certain points in the fossil record, rather than a gradual appearance of possible transitional forms, there is a sudden appearance of a large number of diverse fossils, all in one area. One such example is the Cambrian explosion, where a large number of organisms suddenly appeared to have evolved during the Cambrian Period (around 541 million years ago).

The sudden emergence of such diverse organisms in the fossil record goes against the estimated rate of evolution. Some scientists claim that, rather than a rapid transition, each case represents a large increase in fossilisation during that period. Either way, using the fossil record as evidence of transition between species has been proven unreliable by these discoveries.  In fact, the existence of such diversity in one area does more to promote mass fossilisation due to a cataclysmic flood.

The fossil record itself does not provide conclusive evidence of evolution.  There is no real evidence of species gradually evolving into other kinds of species on a large scale: in fact, there is hardly anything in between that resembles transition between species. Even Darwin himself, the man who brought us the theory of evolution, wrote in his book ‘The Origin of Species’ that he had doubts concerning evolution:

“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 serious objection which can be urged against the theory.” — Darwin, The Origin of Species

Many people consider Darwin’s statement to be outdated, saying that we now have information that wasn’t known in Darwin’s time, and that fossils of possible transitions have been found; however, Darwin’s point was not that there were no fossils of possible transitions, but that he would expect to find “every stratum full” of “finely graduated” fossils at various intermediary stages of transition, which we still cannot find today. The fossils that we have discovered might seem to be transitional stages between species, but there is no evidence to prove that the fossils are linked at all.

Speculative evidence of evolution from dinosaurs to birds

If dinosaurs evolved into birds, as evolution claims, we would expect to find fossil evidence of dinosaurs in intermediary stages of evolution.  Such feathers should be partially formed or only covering certain parts of the body.

The only fossils that conclusively have feathers are those classified as birds, and the feathers are always fully formed.  All claims of dinosaurs having feather-like structures, or transitional stages in feathers, are based on speculation.

Sometimes dinosaur fossils have indistinct structures on the skin, and due to their appearance they are assumed to be feather follicles. Other fossils have structures on the skin that are usually just lines. These filaments are more akin to fine hairs than feathers, but are assumed to be an evolutionary stage in feather production (protofeathers).

A dinosaur fossil was discovered in 1996, named Sinosauropteryx, which scientists claim lived during the Cretaceous Period (around 130 million years ago).  The fossil is claimed to have feather-like structures that are protofeathers.  This claim is speculation, as the structures are more like bristles, and show no similarity to feathers at all.

In 2005, the Journal of Morphology published research titled ‘Do Feathered Dinosaurs Exist?’  The paper claims, “The major, and most worrying, problem of the feathered dinosaur hypothesis is that the integumental structures have been homologized with avian feathers on the basis of anatomically and paleontologically unsound and misleading information”.  Terms such as ‘unsound’ and ‘misleading’ are very harsh, and confirm the high level of speculation involved in claims supporting evolution.

When sequenced in 2004, it was discovered that the chicken genome contains instructions for producing wing claws, a long bony tail, and teeth. It was also discovered that these genes become inactivated during the embryonic stage. While these features are referred to as ‘reptilian’, they are evidence that birds did have wing claws, long bony tails, and teeth in the past.  The lack of these features in modern birds is from loss of function, and is not evidence of evolution — which would require that new genetic information is added to the gene pool.

In 1861, fossils were discovered of a lizard-like bird named Archaeopteryx, which scientists claim lived during the late Jurassic Period (around 150 million years ago). The fossils were previously considered to be the missing link between dinosaurs and birds, mainly due to Archaeopteryx having claws at the end of its wings, a long bony tail, and teeth instead of a beak. Each fossil varies slightly in size, and has varying sizes of claws and teeth.  These slight differences are claimed to be evidence of evolution.

Regardless of having some features that are referred to as ‘reptilian’, Archaeopteryx is classified as a bird, had fully formed feathers like modern birds, and was able to fly, albeit rather poorly.  Although the tail has many unfused vertebrae, similar to dinosaurs, the vertebrae structure is not similar to those supporting the muscular tails of dinosaurs.

Twelve fossils of Archaeopteryx have been discovered over several decades, in various locations in Germany. The only difference between them is the slight variation in size, and the size of claws and teeth. The fossils could be birds of varying ages, or perhaps different species, rather than different stages of evolution. Treating Archaeopteryx as a link between dinosaurs and birds is nothing more than speculation.

Rather than providing evidence of evolution, the similarities between all of the fossils of Archaeopteryx is a blow to the theory of evolution. The same small level of changes in the size of Archaeopteryx can be witnessed via microevolution occurring in organisms today. In order to be considered as evidence supporting evolution, a gradual transition of more than just size would be required.

In 2016, a chunk of amber was found to contain part of a small feathered tail, claimed to be from a juvenile dinosaur.  The fossil is known as DIP-V-15103, and is claimed to come from the Cretaceous Period (99 million years ago).  The full tail is assumed to have up to 25 unfused vertebrae, which is far more than birds, and is the basis for the claim that it belongs to a dinosaur.

Claims related to DIP-V-15103 are based on speculation.  Analysis was hindered due to there being few differences between the soft tissue and bone.  Only two tail (caudal) vertebrae are clearly visible.  Due to the length of the tail, it is estimated that it contains 8 vertebrae.  Also, due to the shape of the vertebrae, scientists assume that this is from the middle section of the tail, and that the full tail would ‘probably’ have up to 25 vertebrae.

The claim that unfused caudal vertebrae are only a characteristic of dinosaurs, and not of birds, goes against existing scientific evidence.  Fossils of Archaeopteryx, classified as a bird, have tails with up to 22 unfused vertebrae.  Even modern birds have up to 9 unfused caudal vertebrae, and this is increased in the juvenile stage — a stage that DIP-V-15103 is considered to be at.

Archaeopteryx predates all fossils of dinosaurs claimed to have feather-like structures (e.g. Sinosauropteryx and DIP-V-15103) by millions of years, revealing how irrational some of these claims are.

Until quite recently, the supported theory of how birds attained flight was that they dropped their teeth — via evolution — to lose the extra weight.  Science has now revealed this speculation to be false, and that flying birds originally had teeth.  We now know that a mutation caused a gene related to the development of teeth to become inactivated.

Although there are no living birds that have teeth, fossils of birds with teeth have been discovered. Ichthyornis and Hesperornis are two such examples, which scientists claim lived during the Cretaceous Period (around 85 million years ago).

Apart from the teeth, these birds are no different to modern birds. Hesperornis was unable to fly, being more like a penguin, and therefore didn’t need to drop its teeth for flight. Ichthyornis was similar to a gull and was able to fly, even with its teeth. The fact that a toothed flying bird existed proves that birds losing their teeth was not related to the evolution of flight.  This evidence once again reveals the speculation behind many claims related to evolution.

Although not commonly known, ostriches, swans, ducks, geese, and some other birds have wing claws, even as adults. There are birds living today with well-developed wing claws that are lost at adulthood, where the claws are used by the young birds to assist with climbing. Two such birds are the African turaco, and a ‘primitive’ bird from South America called the hoatzin.

The hoatzin is of particular interest, having a small breast bone (sternum), similar to Archaeopteryx, meaning that it cannot fly very well. It is a vegetarian and has an enlarged, dual-chambered oesophagus, and multi-chambered crop.  Unlike other birds, the hoatzin digests its food in a similar way to ruminants, such as cattle.  While the hoatzin is clearly different from any other bird, it is obviously still nothing more than a bird.

There is no firm scientific evidence that dinosaurs evolved into birds.  We see no evidence of any gain of function in dinosaurs (i.e. feathers/wings), but a great deal of loss of function in birds (i.e. teeth/claws/tail).  Any suggestion of transition is based on speculation.

Speculative evidence of evolution in DNA

While it is claimed that organisms with high similarities in DNA are closely related, this is merely speculation.  If we hold to this theory it would mean that bats are more closely related to horses than cows are.

High DNA similarities in organisms is not conclusive evidence of evolution from a close common ancestor, it only proves that they have similarities.  As we have seen with fossils, similarities do not prove transition between one organism and another.

A small percentage of genes within DNA are dedicated to the production of proteins.  Proteins provide an organism’s structure and functions.  If two organisms have similar structure and functionality then one would expect a large portion of the protein-encoding region of their genomes to be similar.  Little is known about the non-coding region of DNA.

It is claimed that humans and chimpanzees have somewhere between 95% – 99% similarity in DNA.  There are arguments as to the exact percentage, due to varying interpretations of data by scientists.

As well as with chimpanzees, humans have high similarity in DNA with other organisms.  For example, the similarity between humans and cows is around 80%, with dogs it’s around 85%, and with the Abyssinian domestic cat it’s around 90%.

Another claim that seems to be ignored is that humans and pigs also have around 98% – 99% similarity in DNA, and that pigs are considerably similar to humans both biologically and psychologically. Although there is such a high similarity in DNA, scientists claim that pigs are not closely related to humans.

The similarities between humans and pigs are claimed to be due to convergent evolution.  This is a process where organisms independently develop similar, complex features, due to the influence of environmental factors.  One of many examples is where bats and dolphins are claimed to have separately evolved echo location.

As scientists do not consider humans and pigs to be closely related, this is in conflict with the claim that high similarities in DNA between organisms is evidence of evolution from a close common ancestor.

All scientific claims of organisms evolving from a close common ancestor are based purely on similarities, which is speculation. Along with DNA, anatomical similarities are another main reason why scientists believe that humans and chimpanzees evolved from a close common ancestor. This is no different to the claim that similarities between fossils prove that one organism evolved from the other — even though there is no conclusive evidence whatsoever (as explained earlier).

Other claims of humans and chimpanzees sharing a close common ancestor are based on similarities in embryos. Again, this is speculation.  Rabbit embryos also look very similar to human embryos, as do the embryos of other organisms that have little similarity with fully grown humans.

The organs of fetal pigs are remarkably similar to those of the human fetus, and when fully grown their organs are similar to those in fully grown humans.  Regardless of this, we are told that humans and pigs do not share a close common ancestor.

The embryos of vertebrates (such as humans) develop structures (pharyngeal arches) that look very similar to those in fish embryos. In humans the structures form bones in the ears and jaw. In fish the structures form gills. Due to this, it was originally claimed that human embryos have gills, and that humans evolved from fish — a claim still made by some.

While the pharyngeal arches of humans and fish do appear similar, this is merely similarity in appearance. During the development stage they are formed into entirely separate, unrelated structures. It is incorrect to suggest that pharyngeal arches in human embryos are gills, and speculation to suggest that they ever were gills.

Human embryos are also claimed to have tails, which disappear during the development stage.  The term ‘disappear’ is misleading.  What actually occurs is that the vertebrae of the embryonic ‘tail’ fuse together to form the coccyx. In some cases, humans have been born with ‘tails’, but these are not really tails. They are not made up of any form of bone, and do not contain spinal cord.

Dolphin embryos have protrusions in the hind quarters, which disappear after several weeks.  It is claimed that the protrusions are hind limb buds, which is evidence of evolution, revealing that dolphins once had hind ‘legs’.

Although dolphins don’t have rear fins, in 2006, Japanese researchers discovered a bottlenose dolphin that had well-developed symmetrical rear fins, protruding from the tail on the underside. As expected, speculative claims were made, suggesting that this was evidence of evolution, and that dolphins transitioned from four-footed land mammals to aquatic mammals.

The only evidence revealed here is that the hind limb buds in the dolphin embryos were actually rear fin buds, and that they did have rear fins in the past.  In the case of the bottlenose dolphin, a mutation in DNA activated these existing genes.  The claim that the fins were once legs is speculation, as there is no evidence whatsoever to prove this.  Also, the lack of rear fins in most dolphins is from loss of function, and is not evidence of evolution.

Another issue with the claim that dolphins evolved from land mammals is that this is evolution in reverse (devolution).  If evolution can go both ways, with organisms gaining new features and then reverting back to a more ‘primitive’ form, why are we told that the fossil record only shows organisms becoming more complex over millions of years?  Scientific evidence has revealed that this isn’t the case.

On September 27th, 2012, the journal Current Biology published research titled, “Ghost Loci Imply Hox and ParaHox Existence in the Last Common Ancestor of Animals.” The research details contradictions in the claim that organisms become more complex over millions of years. Many modern organisms were actually discovered to have become less complex.  Regardless of scientific evidence, the original opinion is still promoted as fact, as it better supports the theory of evolution.

Evolution requires that information developing new functionality is added to the gene pool. There is no scientific evidence that this has ever occurred.  On the other hand, scientific discoveries reveal that a large amount of genetic information has been inactivated. On occasions, inactivated genes become active again; however, this is not evidence of evolution.

One issue that seems to be completely overlooked regarding DNA is the complexity surrounding it. All cells contain DNA. DNA contains instructions on how to make proteins, which are vital for all of an organism’s biological functions. DNA is completely useless on its own, and relies on the cells interpreting it and creating the required proteins.

External signals cause an organism’s cells to copy (transcribe) a specific section of DNA to mRNA, then the mRNA is translated into amino acids that make up the proteins. There is an interdependence here that defies evolution. How can instructions be performed unless there is an interpreter? How can an interpreter work without instructions? While we may consider cells to be very simple parts of an organism, looking into their complexity brings about many questions that scientists can only explain through speculation.

Speculative evidence of human evolution

It is claimed that humans evolved from apelike ancestors over millions of years. Evidence associated with human evolution is meagre, being based mainly on the discovery of just a few bones or skull fragments.

The skull fragments are claimed to alter dramatically throughout the geologic time line – being dated by the rock they are found in. Due to this, it is assumed that there were various human species that evolved at differing rates. Despite claims that they are of early human origin, there is no evidence to suggest that the skulls are anything other than those of various ape species.

It has been claimed that there are up to 20 different species of human. There is wide disagreement in the scientific community over this claim, and scientists still cannot agree what classifies as a human fossil.

Some acclaimed early human fossils were later found to be hoaxes. The Piltdown Man fossil was revealed in 1912, but in 1953 it was discovered to be the skull of a great ape doctored to appear as an early human. In 1922, the discovery of a tooth in Nebraska led to the claim of Nebraska Man.  The claim was retracted in 1927, as the tooth was found to belong to a wild pig. Incidents such as these reveal the desperation to prove human evolution.  Even today, many discoveries are blown out of proportion, where speculation is presented as fact.

The only reason some fossils of apelike creatures are considered to be early humans is due to the possibility that they walked upright (were bipedal).  Some fossils of apelike creatures have an anatomy that suggests more human-like movement, and there are claims that they ‘probably’ walked on two legs. Regardless of this, the skeletons are quite obviously those of apes, and the claim of transition between ape and man is speculation.

One fossil most often referred to as a the best evidence of human evolution is Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis). Although almost identical to a chimpanzee, Lucy is claimed to be a an early human ancestor that was able to walk upright around 3-4 million years ago.  The claim of being bipedal is due to the hip, leg and knee joint being more similar to humans.

Lucy is obviously nothing more than an ape.  Fossil evidence revealed that Lucy had powerful arms, suggesting that most time was spent in the trees, and although the anatomy supported walking upright it would not be sustainable over a long period of time.  At the initial discovery, most of the skull, hands and feet were not present, so assumptions were made regarding these.

Years later, complete fossils of the same species as Lucy were discovered.  This new evidence proved former assumptions relating to the missing parts to be incorrect.  The only features with any similarity to humans were the hip, leg and knee.

Lucy’s skull was found to be similar to a chimpanzee.  Although the brain was 20% larger than a chimpanzee, the brain imprints were discovered to be ape-like, with no key human features.  Analysis of the wrist revealed that Lucy was a knuckle-walker, like chimpanzees, and the toes were also curved, similar to tree dwelling apes.  Once again, scientific evidence has revealed the high level of speculation in claims related to evolution.

In 2015, a fossil of a small primate, Danuvius guggenmosi, was discovered, which has proved earlier assumptions on human evolution wrong. Claimed to have lived around 11.5 million years ago, several million years before Lucy, D. guggenmosi is classified as a species of bipedal ape — not an early human form. The hip, leg and knee joint were also human-like, similar to Lucy, and yet this is most certainly just an ape, similar to a baboon. The claim that bipedalism proves humans evolved from an apelike ancestor is speculation.

On October 18th 2013, Science Magazine published a study titled, “A Complete Skull from Dmanisi, Georgia, and the Evolutionary Biology of Early Homo”.  The research was related to a complete skull that was found in Dmanisi, Georgia in 2005. The skull was dated as being 1.8 million years old, and yet the structure was similar to modern human skulls. The discovery of this new evidence has led researchers to believe that the skulls previously considered to be from different human species are from a single species, and that there was a greater diversity in the size and shape of skulls in the past.

The earliest engravings by mankind were originally claimed to have originated about 100,000 years ago, on a pebble discovered in the Klasies River Cave in South Africa. On December 3rd 2014, the journal Nature published an article titled, “Homo erectus made world’s oldest doodle 500,000 years ago”.  The research was on a fossilised shell from Java dated between 430,000 and 540,000 years ago was found to have engravings by humans. Stephen Munro, from the School of Archaeology and Anthropology at The Australian National University, said, “It rewrites human history.”

Even with these new discoveries, it is still claimed that modern man originated 200,000 years ago, and still claimed that the skull fragments are from various human species. It is strange to think that those who profess to follow science are ignoring new scientific evidence, preferring to uphold previously held opinions, for the simple fact that they better support the widely held theory of evolution.

Facts and theories — limitations of observable evidence

The terms ‘theory’ and ‘fact’ have different meanings when applied to science, which usually causes confusion. A ‘scientific theory’ is a testable explanation based on facts, rather than the standard definition of ‘theory’ which is more related to speculation or opinion. In science, theories can also be facts.

Rather than focusing on whether or not evolution is ‘just a ‘theory’, we should focus on it being a ‘fact’, and how insignificant this really is. Science is all about observation, and we can’t always guarantee we’ve observed enough to confirm that scientific facts are true.

Truth – the difference between facts and scientific facts

The dictionary definition of the word ‘fact’ is “a thing that is known or proved to be true,” the operative word being ‘true’. Our ultimate aim is to find the truth, and when we claim that something is a fact we are claiming that, beyond all doubt, we have discovered the irrefutable truth.

A ‘scientific fact’ is entirely different than a standard ‘fact’, in that it does not guarantee truth. The definition of a ‘scientific fact’ is “an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final)”. It is something that has the possibility of being disproved, and is believed to be true until evidence is discovered to disprove it (referred to as being falsifiable).

The unreliability of scientific facts

Obviously some facts are temporary, such as the Empire State Building in New York being the tallest building in the world. It was for a forty year period, but no longer is. Certain facts such as this are short-lived, and are things that are naturally susceptible to change, unlike major scientific theories we claim to be facts.

Many things have been claimed to be factual that were never true: they seemed to be facts until further evidence appeared that disproved them. Academics believe that “there is no such thing as a fact,” and that half of the things we learn will be considered untrue in about 10-20 years time. This is known as ‘the half-life of facts’. What such academics are really saying is that facts as we know them are mostly speculation, and that anything we believe to be a fact is most likely untrue.

Science is claimed to be the opposite of religion, being fact-based rather than faith-based.  The truth is that belief in parallel universes is similar to belief in heaven and hell.  Also, the spiritual realm could be described in scientific terms as another dimension.  While anything with a religious theme is rejected, if theories are labelled ‘scientific’, people believe in them with a faith equal to that of the deeply religious.

Even though many scientific theories have been proven false over time — by science itself, might I add — most people continue to have a blind belief in them. Each time scientific estimates change we accept them as though they are indisputable.

Belief in scientific theories requires faith purely in that which is observed, and for this reason the theories are unreliable. How do scientists know they haven’t missed a vital piece of evidence, something that could disprove their theories? Some people are imprisoned for a crime because a large number of separate facts seem to prove that they are guilty. Years later, these same people are exonerated, as just a single piece of DNA evidence proves they were innocent all along.

While the theories science provides may be ‘based’ upon facts, this doesn’t make them factual — as we can never be sure that we have all of the facts. We have treated many scientific theories as though they are true, even though the observations they are based on are limited. Despite a great deal of speculation being involved, we are all taught to have unquestionable faith in such theories.

People who speak out against popular theories are usually ridiculed. When these theories are eventually proved to be false we are told that our knowledge about science is always expanding, and that it is natural for theories to change as we discover more about the universe.

We are expected to accept scientific theories as being completely true, and also expected to accept that we might not have all of the facts, whereby the theories may later be proved false. These things are in conflict with each other.

Many theories that scientists provide us with are based on very little evidence, and are usually accepted as being facts although they are unproven. On top of this, the interpretation of scientific evidence is often based on an underlying bias towards evolution.

The following are theories that were once considered factual, but have now been proven false:

Evolution of the horse

In 1879, Othniel Marsh presented the theory of horse evolution. It showed the gradual change from smaller mammals to the present day horse. As fossils of the smaller mammals were found in lower layers of the geologic column, becoming larger in the higher layers, the assumption was made that they represented evolutionary changes from the original mammals.

On November 5th 1980, The Houston Chronicle reported on a four-day conference held by around 160 pro-evolution scientists, at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago.  They stated that “The popularly told example of horse evolution… has long been known to be wrong.”  Furthermore, they emphasised that, “Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct.”

Even though it is known to have been false for decades, the theory of the evolution of the horse is still promoted and taught as being factual.  Once again, scientific evidence is ignored, and previous opinions are upheld, purely for the sake of evolution.

Reproduction of nerve cells in the brain

For years it was believed that the nerve cells in a creature’s brain start dying from the day it is born, never to be replaced. In 1984, neuroscientist Fernando Nottebohm discovered that dying nerve cells in the brains of songbirds were replaced, yet scientists ignored the evidence and continued to promote the original ‘fact’ that this did not happen. Only in February 2009 did scientists announce that creatures, including humans, are able to produce new, functioning nerve cells in their brains. The so-called ‘fact’ that these cells are not replaced has been proven to be mere speculation.

The direction of a planet’s orbit must follow the rotation of its star

The rotation of the sun is anticlockwise, and all planets in our solar system orbit the sun in the same anticlockwise direction. Because of this it was believed that the direction of a planet’s orbit should always follow the rotation of the star it is orbiting, and theories on the formation of planets were based on this speculation. In 2010, planets outside our solar system (extrasolar planets) were found to have orbits in the opposite direction to the rotation of their star, going completely against theories on the formation of planets developed by scientists.

There is no water on the moon

For years it was believed that the moon was dry, and that there was no water on it at all. The only reason for this theory was that no water had been found on it, even though very little testing had been done. In 2009, NASA fired a rocket into the moon, blasting out a hole, and then sampled the particles from the blast. In 2010, after a detailed analysis, Peter Shultz of Brown University, a lead author of one of the studies, said, “All the books on the moon say that the moon is dry, and now we have to rewrite that chapter.”

Time has proven that theories we considered to be unshakable facts, which were really false, were only considered factual because we lacked the ability to delve deep enough in order to find the truth.

Evolution is a theory based upon speculation.  Although there is no conclusive evidence to back it up, evolution is accepted and taught as though it is factual. The deeper one delves into the facts used to explain it, one has to question whether evolution can be true.

Evidence against evolution through DNA mutation

A gene is a sequence within DNA.  Each gene informs cells how to make a particular protein, which caters for specific functionality. Proteins are essential for all biological functions, and determine the physical characteristics of an organism. Just around 1.2% of DNA in the human genome holds information on protein creation. The remaining 98.8% of DNA is non-coding.

Non-coding DNA was — and sometimes still is —  referred to as ‘Junk DNA’.  The term ‘Junk DNA’ was first coined in the 1960s, as scientists originally believed that it had no purpose.  This claim was pure speculation, and more recently it has been proven false.  Scientists have now discovered that non-coding DNA is related to gene expression, and is involved in epigenetic modifications.

For evolution to occur, information that develops new functionality needs to be added to the gene pool — which would have to occur through mutation.  This is not merely the function of an existing gene being altered, but the generation of a new gene that has a completely new function.

A point mutation is where the elements of a specific gene are changed. The elements can change position, become reversed, be removed, or be added.

Some point mutations are referred to as ‘missense mutations’, which cause a different amino acid to be produced within a protein. With missense mutations, in some cases the function of the protein can be altered, but the alterations are still within limits of the original function.  While mutations can cause a gene to alter, they do not add new information to the gene pool that leads to new functionality.

In some cases new genes are formed from non-coding DNA, which are referred to as ‘de novo genes’.  While this is claimed to be evidence of evolution, no information developing new functionality has ever been observed.  A de novo gene discovered in the house mouse resulted in better regulation of reproductive cycles in the mice.  While this is claimed to be evidence of evolution, the beneficial changes were caused by the loss of a protein.

When the outcome of a mutation is seen as beneficial it is claimed to be evidence of evolution.  Although an organism may benefit from mutations, such changes are still related to alteration or loss of existing functions.

When mutation of genetic information occurs the change is random, and this frequently results in instability within the genome. Missense mutations are the cause of devastating genetic disorders, such as sickle cell anaemia.  In fact, missense mutations are usually associated with disease.

Genetic mutations that alter functionality

A very large number of beneficial mutations are required for evolution to occur on a large scale.  As well as this, the mutations would all need to be coordinated.

Based on scientific studies, if a high number of mutations was to occur then most would have no effect (referred to as neutral).  Some mutations would be harmful, and few would be beneficial.

Due to each mutation being random, this is highly likely to have a negative effect. Even if a particular loss of function is beneficial, it is still caused by the removal of existing information, and a function being lost. To result in evolution, mutations over time would also cause an awful lot of harmful effects within the genome.

Cells have the ability to repair damage to DNA through various methods.  They react in an attempt to reduce all mutations, whether they are harmful or beneficial.  Not all mutations are repaired, and they increase within the genome of an organism over time.

The very fact that cells can repair DNA is quite amazing, and scientists can only explain this through speculation. It is obvious that there is an interaction between cells and DNA, with the purpose being to produce specific proteins based on genetic code, to exactly replicate existing information and functionality between cells, and to repair any genetic mutations.  The fact that cells attempt to repair mutations, and are not discriminatory between those that are beneficial or harmful, goes against evolution.

Experiments on genetic mutation

The fruit fly has a gestation period of just twelve days, which means that many generations are produced within a very short space of time. Because of this, scientists have chosen to use them in experiments related to evolution, using radiation to dramatically increase the rate of mutation. In around 100 years of experimentation, scientists have witnessed the number of generations of fruit fly equal to what would take mankind millions of years to achieve.

The experiments on fruit flies have produced no evidence of them evolving into anything other than flies. In fact, many mutations that did evolve became weak or sterile, and either died out or reverted to their original state after several generations.

Some mutations caused legs to appear where antennae should be, and eyes to appear in locations where they wouldn’t normally be. In all mutations, physical changes were not small and gradual, but large and complete. While this is claimed to be evidence of evolution, the code for developing legs and antennae already existed; therefore, although changes took place, no information developing new functionality was added.  Most changes that occurred were due to loss of function.

E. coil bacteria has a gestation period of between three and nine days, and experiments similar to the fruit fly have been performed on it. The experiments of Richard Lenski are often cited as evidence of evolution. The most discussed experiment is where E. coli bacteria, through mutation of its genetic information, was able to digest citric acid where it could not do so before.  The reason for this beneficial mutation was not due to information developing new functionality being added to the gene pool.  It was, once again, due to loss of function.

When a gene loses the ability to perform a specific function (loses specificity), an organism can adapt to suit a different environment. E coli can naturally digest citric acid in low-oxygen environments. In this case, the mutation caused a gene to lose specificity, which removed the restriction associated with the digestion of citric acid.

While a mutation may appear beneficial in laboratory conditions, instability within the genome is also introduced.  Many mutations caused the bacteria to lose functions, such as the ability to repair their DNA, or the ability to digest sugar.  If these organisms were let loose outside the laboratory they would not survive. Even in Lenski’s work, most mutations were detrimental, and none added information to the gene pool that developed new functionality.

The claim that evolution occurs through mutation is unproven. In fact, quite the opposite is true: experiments on fruit flies and bacteria have provided us with evidence that mutation does not lead to evolution.

It is clear that mutation and natural selection can only remove or alter existing functional information from the gene pool, and do not add any information that develops new functionality. Evolution cannot occur without the addition of new information leading to new functionality.

The perfection of random genetic mutations

Organisms cannot willingly create changes within themselves. Even if they wished to fly, dinosaurs could not influence the development of feathers or the dropping of their teeth. According to evolution, any changes occurring within an organism must come from random mutations.  The mutations would appear in various different places, and would occur slowly over millions of years.

Although some mutations could be of benefit, many would be worthless, and many would become an encumbrance that eventually wiped out the variation.  Surely, if evolution was taking place we would see more evidence? Not only in fossils, but we should see evidence in organisms alive today with such partially-formed, seemingly pointless transitional features.

Genetic mutations can be harmful, beneficial or neutral.  Dominant genes are more likely to have neutral mutations, as these are the most common.  This would result in changes that don’t hinder or benefit the species, but there would still be many changes.  If evolution is true, this should still result in some additional, pointless structures.

Consider the transformation of a caterpillar to a butterfly: while in its chrysalis the caterpillar goes through gradual changes to its appearance, both externally and internally, at an incredibly fast rate. If it took a caterpillar millions of years to evolve into a butterfly then we would expect to see many gradual transitions of the caterpillar to the final form. In this situation most of the intermediate transitions would look far from perfect, and would be a hindrance.

Rather than seeing many cases of flawed mutations, we see a vast number of organisms with perfect features that seem incredible.  Scientists even produce new technology based on some of these amazing biological features.  In 1799, the concept of the first plane was based on vultures and their ability to glide.  In 2021, a new water-repellent nanomaterial was inspired by plants.

Evolution suggests that structures appeared on a reptile’s body, and these evolved into feathers.  Scientists agree that feathers are complex structures.  Not only are feathers complex, but birds have six different types of feather, which are perfect for achieving flight.  Each feather is positioned in just the right place, causing the wing to act as an aerofoil, providing lift. It is shockingly hard to believe that so many perfect, coordinated changes occurred purely by chance.

Animals have a gene known as a plasminogen activator, which aids in the production of proteins that break down and prevent blood clots. The vampire bat is different in that this gene is activated in its saliva, allowing it to continue feeding off creatures it has caused to bleed. Then there is the fact that it has extremely sharp teeth, perfect for perforating even the thick hides of cattle; its tongue is perfectly developed for extracting blood, having a groove in which blood is drawn via a capillary action; also, there is the fact that it can detect blood using infrared sensors. The chance of so many coordinated mutations occurring randomly and being in such harmony with each other is unbelievable.

Television presenters who are pro-evolution can’t help but refer to certain creatures as being clever for evolving such amazing abilities.  The use of the term ‘clever’ goes against their own beliefs, suggesting a subconscious acknowledgement of intelligent design.  After all, there is nothing clever about random occurrences, and organisms are unable to affect their own evolution by choice.

Genetic mutation through necessity?

The Permian-Triassic extinction event is claimed to have occurred around 252 million years ago, wiping out 95% of species.  Since this event, we are told that a great deal of evolutionary changes have taken place.  According to evolution, mammals first appeared around 175 million years ago, primates appeared around 55 million years ago, and early humans appeared around 2 million years ago.

In some organisms there is a distinct lack of mutation. Fossils of creatures claimed to have originated during the Late Cambrian Period (around 500 million years ago) have been found whose descendants are still living today, showing no significant evolutionary changes. Three examples are the horseshoe crab, tadpole shrimp and the nautilus.

According to claims associated with evolution through mutation, it is impossible for an organism to show no evidence of evolution over 500 million years. For multiple organisms to be found in this way is miraculous. The common explanation given for this is that they didn’t need to evolve in order to survive.

While most people accept this explanation, we must ask the question: if these organisms didn’t need to evolve in order to survive, are we claiming that all evolutionary changes must occur out of necessity? According to evolution, changes do not occur out of necessity, they naturally occur through genetic mutation — as there can be no natural selection without first having variation.

If an organism benefits from its mutations it is likely to out-breed the original form via natural selection. If an organism neither benefits or is hindered by its mutations then change will still occur, through the dominance of one of the genetic changes. Surely, this would have to dramatically alter the form of an organism  — especially over a period of several hundred million years.

Evidence against evolution in fossils, rock strata and dating methods

New rock layers within the earth (strata) are constantly covering over the old. Digging down a few feet can reveal artefacts from Roman times. Digging further down can reveal artefacts from hundreds of years before that. As layers are constantly building up, and considering the depth of them, scientists assume that all of the rock layers have formed very slowly in this way over billions of years.

It is claimed that any significant evolution of an organism requires genetic changes over millions of generations.  For most organisms this usually relates to millions of years.  The main evidence that this has occurred is claimed to be within the fossil record.

To provide evidence supporting evolution, each rock layer must represent a period of millions of years.  This is so that the fossils within each layer are separated for a period long enough to support transition between species (i.e. macroevolution).

The only reason why fossils are claimed to be millions of years old is due to the estimated date of each rock layer.  If the strata are not millions of years old then neither are the fossils within them, and the theory of evolution is proven to be impossible.

Evidence against sedimentary layers being millions of years old

The geologic column is claimed to present a chronological timeline of various rock layers, representing each layer as it was laid down over millions of years. It combines all individual rock layers throughout the world in a single column.

Rock layers produced from sediment (sedimentary strata) are dated via relative dating: an estimated date is obtained by comparing fossils within the rock to fossils in layers within the geologic column.

Rock layers produced from volcanic activity (igneous strata) are dated via radiometric dating, based on the decay of radioactive elements within the rock.  Fossils within or near the rock are given the same date.

Sometimes fossils are dated by the rock they are found in, and sometimes rock is dated by the fossils found in it, and any date arrived at using this circular method is based on speculation.

Fossils of organisms claimed to have lived for relatively short time periods, and only found within certain layers, are referred to as ‘index fossils’.  Scientists use index fossils to date specific rock layers in the geologic column.

Due to its reliance on index fossils, the geologic time scale is unreliable.  On many occasions, index fossils are discovered in layers far earlier or later than they were supposed to have existed, and dates for rock layers associated with the fossils are then invalidated. This is proof that dating via index fossils is based on speculation.

Perhaps fossils have only been found within certain layers and not others; however, the fossils may very well exist in other layers, but nobody has found them. And what about the fact that organisms might have existed over millions of years without having left any fossils at all (e.g. the coelacanth)?

In 1967, the Journal of Sedimentary Petrology published an article titled, “Flood Deposits, Bijou Creek, Colorado, June 1965”.  The research was related to flooding that occurred after 48 hours of rain at Bijou Creek in Colorado, in 1965.  The flooding left sediment that made up to twelve feet of stratified layers. The sedimentary layers were neat and uniform, identical to others represented in the geologic column — each of which scientists claim to be millions of years old.  This research proves that sedimentary layers can be formed in a short time in rapidly flowing water.

In 1980, in the space of just one day, the volcanic eruption of Mount St. Helens deposited stratified sediment layers up to 150 feet deep.  In 1982, a further eruption caused snow to melt, resulting in a rapid mudflow.  This carved canyons up to 140 feet deep into the previous sediment deposit, revealing the individual layers.  Further snow melts resulted in other canyons being produced in a single day, one of which was Step Canyon, which is around 600 feet deep.

The sedimentary layers of Arizona’s Grand Canyon and those produced from the eruption of Mount St. Helens are stratified in the same way, and yet scientists claim that those in the Grand Canyon took millions of years to form.

As observable evidence shows that multiple stratified layers can be formed quickly, this goes against the claim that individual rock layers provide a measure of chronology.

In the Grand Canyon, rock representing three main stages of evolution (the Ordovician, Silurian, and Devonian periods), claimed to span 150 million years, is missing.  These strata should sit between the Muav Limestone and Redwall Limestone layers.

It is impossible that no sedimentary layers were formed over the extremely long period of 150 million years, and the reason geologists give for the missing layers in the Grand Canyon is that erosion took place. One problem with this is that the layers either side of the 150 million years of missing rock are flat against each other, rather than having the uneven surface that erosion would cause.

Almost 80 percent of the geologic column consists of mudrock — sedimentary rock with a fine grain size, including mudstone, claystone, silt and shale. Scientists claim that mud deposits require mostly still water in order to form; therefore, according to scientists, it is a fact that mudrock formations must be millions of years old. This is given as a reason why a young earth is impossible, due to the many separate layers of mudrock in the earth.

In Science magazine, 14 December 2007, a study was published titled, “Accretion of Mudstone Beds from Migrating Floccule Ripples”.  The research covered the deposition of mud, and was performed by Juergen Schieber, John Southard, and Kevin Thaisen — supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation. Separate experiments were performed using calcium montmorillonite and kaolinite (extremely fine clays), and natural lake muds. The experiments revealed that mud starts to form in rapidly flowing water within a short time period, and also that the presence of organic matter with the mud enhances mud deposition from fast moving currents.

The reason for the research, according to Schieber, was that “In many ancient mudstones, you see not only deposition, but also erosion and rapid re-deposition of mud — all in the same place;” also, “The erosive features are at odds with the notion that the waters must have been still all or most of the time. We needed a better explanation.”

The fact that many mudstones hold evidence that they were created in rapid flowing water again reveals the general attitude of scientists, whereby any evidence going against a widely held theory is disregarded.  A great deal of evidence against evolution is ignored in this fashion.

In 1946, millions of fossils of soft-tissue organisms resembling jellyfish were discovered in the Flinders Ranges, north of Adelaide, Southern Australia. The fossils were found within marine limestone spanning an area of around 200 miles. Scientists admit that these organisms became trapped rapidly in a large quantity of fine silt, which then rapidly hardened. The silt layer must have formed almost immediately, rather than taking the millions of years scientists claim limestone and other sedimentary rock requires; also, fossilisation must have occurred within days, as the soft tissue of jellyfish easily decomposes or is destroyed.

This discovery disproves the claim that sedimentary rock, such as limestone, must form slowly over millions of years; also, due to the quantity of fossils and the area they cover, the event leading to the organisms being trapped must have been cataclysmic. Scientists previously believed that only hard-bodied organisms could fossilise, once again revealing the level of speculation in claims regarding fossils.

Sandstone is also claimed to take millions of years to form. In Kingoodie Quary, Scotland, in 1844, Sir David Brewster discovered what is known as the ‘Kingoodie artefact’: an iron nail within a sandstone block from the Cretaceous Period, within the Mesozoic Era (between 65 and 250 million years ago). The sandstone block was formed around the nail, with the head completely embedded in the rock. This signifies that the nail must have been made millions of years before man is supposed to have existed — according to evolution.

The theory that all of the strata formed over millions of years has no factual evidence to back it up. The observable evidence mentioned here disproves the ‘fact’ that mud deposits require mostly still water to form, and casts doubt upon the claimed age of sedimentary rock.

Scientists claim that there is evidence of mass extinction events in the past.  The biggest of these events is the Permian-Triassic extinction event, which is claimed to have wiped out 95% of species around 252 million years ago.

It is claimed that during this event there were changes in sea level, along with massive volcanic eruptions that ignited organic matter. The eruptions also released a large quantity of material into the atmosphere, including mercury and greenhouse gasses, causing climate change.  This also resulted in an extreme rainfall event that affected the entire planet.

It is interesting how all of these events support the Biblical account of the flood, which wiped most living things off the face of the earth.  Even with such evidence, a cataclysmic global flood is not even considered to be the cause of the separate layers in the earth, and the fossils within them.

Scientists have also claimed that crude oil takes millions of years to form. On December 18th, 2013, Engineers at the US Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) came up with a process that converted algae to crude oil within minutes. Previous processes used dried algae, but the new process can be used in a mixture that is up to 90% water. The new process uses high pressures and temperatures to convert the algae, which fits in nicely with the conditions scientists claim to have occurred during the Permian-Triassic extinction event, and also fits in with the flood theory.

Evidence against evolution in polystrate fossils — rapid strata formation

Some strata have been found to contain fossils of upright trees extending through them, suggesting that each layer was actually formed within days. Fossils extending through multiple rock layers are known as ‘polystrate’.

Scientists admit — when it suits their theories — that some sediment layers can be formed rapidly. To counter the argument that a flood caused the rapid burial, a common theory offered by scientists is that the trees could have been buried over a period of thousands of years while still alive. This would explain why the trees did not rot during that time, and why they remained in an upright position.

Some of the strata in which the polystrate tree fossils occur are mudrock (such as shale); therefore, as scientists claim that the layers around the fossils were formed within just a few thousand years, it would further contradict theories that mudrock must be formed slowly over millions of years.

Some polystrate tree fossils have been discovered to be upside down, and many of the fossils have no roots, so cannot have been alive during burial. While the layers built up around them over thousands of years, trees that were upside down or had no roots would have rotted away before fossilisation could occur. Due to this, the fossils must have been formed within a few years at most. The only sensible conclusion must be that the trees were deposited within a very short space of time, and most likely via a flood.

A large number of polystrate tree fossils has been discovered within cliffs at the Bay of Fundy, near Joggins, Nova Scotia.  The tree fossils were found to extend through coal seams in the rock.  In some places, individual fossils extend through multiple coal seams.  Scientists claim that coal seams take millions of years to form; however, as the trees cannot have remained alive for millions of years, the coal seams must have been formed within a short time period.

Fossils of marine organisms have been discovered alongside the tree fossils, indicating that sea water was involved in the burial of the trees, backing up the flood theory. Both upright and upside down tree fossils have been discovered beside each other, within the same strata. These discoveries indicate rapid burial associated with a cataclysmic flood.

Written in 1882 by Charles Lyell, the man who influenced Charles Darwin, the book ‘Elements of Geology’ describes polystrate tree fossils, and suggests that the fact they are upright disproves the flood theory. Around one hundred years later, this speculative opinion was proved false.  Observable evidence has recently revealed how a cataclysmic event can produce such fossils.

The landslides caused by the eruption of Mount St. Helens in 1980 tore trees from their roots and deposited them into Spirit Lake.  A recent study of the lake revealed that over a short time period almost 20,000 trees sank into an upright position at the bottom of the lake and became fossilised. In 1983, an article ‘Erect floating stumps in Spirit Lake, Washington’, by Harold G. Coffin, describes this in detail.

Observable evidence reveals how upright trees with no roots can be deposited in a short time period, allowing fossilisation. Shockingly, many scientists still cite Lyell’s opinions and disregard observable scientific evidence, going against their own principles.

It is claimed that coal is formed through the slow accumulation and decomposition of plant debris (peat), which is then compacted by heat and pressure over millions of years. Peat layers averagely increase by one millimetre per year; however, this is obviously not always the case. As scientists claim that polystrate tree fossils were buried rapidly, and some extend through multiple coal seams, it suggests that peat layers can be formed much faster than expected.

The fossilised vegetation found within coal seams is similar throughout, showing no evidence of evolution via transitional changes.  This would also suggest that peat formation in these situations was rapid.

It is clear that peat can form quickly based on observable evidence. From the landslides of Mount St. Helens, bark from the trees deposited into Spirit Lake formed a peat layer on the bottom of lake within a forty year period.  The peat layer matched the composition found within coal layers.

In 1984, the journal Organic Geochemistry contained an article on the rapid formation of coal.  The article described how Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois discovered that coal was able to form within months. The process did not require any decay in vegetation, or any pressure.  All that was required was the presence of organic material, buried at a depth where there is no oxygen, along with thermal reactions. Coal was found to form in this situation in only 36 weeks, at a temperature of 150 degrees Celsius.  The formation was much faster if the temperature was higher.

Scientists ignore evidence on the rapid formation of peat, and the short time period required to convert organic material to coal.  The only reason this evidence is ignored is that it removes the millions of years required for evolution to occur.

The unreliability of radiocarbon dating

Radiocarbon (or carbon-14) dating is a process used to calculate the age of organic matter, and occasionally non-organic matter, based on the amount of carbon it contains. The carbon element’s radioactive carbon-14 isotope decays over time, and this is compared against the carbon-12 isotope, which does not decay (a stable isotope).

Although accuracy beyond 4,000 years cannot be proven, it is claimed that carbon dating is accurate to within 50,000 years. According to scientists, any organism having died over 50,000 years ago would contain insufficient radiocarbon, meaning that the results would be inaccurate. Two dates are usually obtained using this dating method: one assuming that the decay rate has been constant, and the other using calibration to apply estimates of decay over the thousands of years. Both are based on assumptions.

Even with the claim of 50,000 years accuracy, radiocarbon dating has still been used to date things estimated as being millions of years old. Many scientists have agreed that this process is unreliable, and dates could be affected by changes in the atmosphere and in the earth’s magnetic field, which scientists say is decreasing.

Large amounts of carbon-12 have been released into the atmosphere in various ways, greatly affecting the validity of radiocarbon dating.  Carbon-12 is released via the use of fossil fuels, via gases released through volcanic activity, and through earthquakes – which release carbon-12 from limestone and substrates (at a rate scientists are unable to accurately calculate).

Another scientific claim is that organic remains containing radiocarbon must be at most 100,000 years old. Organic remains, including coal, which are claimed to be millions of years old, have been found to contain radiocarbon. When faced with this argument, scientists usually claim that this is due to contamination; however, by upholding this explanation, scientists are confirming that radiocarbon dating is unreliable due to contamination.

In 1971, an article in the Antarctic Journal of the United States, titled “Mummified Seals of Southern Victoria Land,” revealed that freshly killed seals had been dated as having died 1,300 years ago, and some that died up to 30 years ago were dated at 4,600 years. Recently, radiocarbon dating of ‘live’ mollusc shells off the Hawaiian coast revealed that they had died 2,000 years ago, and in Australia a 50-year-old felt miners hat that had fossilised was dated at 6,000 years old.

The unreliability of isochron dating

Isochron dating is a modern technique, using multiple samples taken from a specific rock. It provides a far more reliable method than standard radiometric dating, using elements created at the time the rock was formed. An isotope of the parent element decays to an isotope of the daughter element, and the rate of decay is measured; also, a stable isotope, taken from an element in the same family as the daughter, is used to further compare against the rate of decay.

There are various isochron dating techniques, such as rubidium-strontium dating (radioactive rubidium-87 decays to strontium-87) and uranium-lead dating (radioactive uranium decays to lead). Here we’ll look at potassium-argon dating (radioactive potassium-40 decays to argon-40).

Potassium-argon dating is a process used to measure radioactive potassium decay within volcanic rock in order to determine its age. Radioactive potassium decays to argon gas, and the date of volcanic rock is based on this rate of decay. The age of the rock presented by this method is attributed to any fossils found within or near it. The technique assumes that no argon gas existed within the lava, and that the decaying radioactive potassium was fully contained when the lava hardened into rock.

There is evidence that contamination does occur, giving amazing results from rock formed within our lifetime. Volcanic rock produced by an eruption at Mt Ngauruhoe in New Zealand, in 1954, was potassium-argon dated as being up to 3.5 million years old. In 1968, rocks known to have been created from an eruption in 1800 by the Hualalai volcano in Hawaii were dated by scientists to be 160 million to 3 billion years old.

The lava dome formed by Mount St. Helens in 1980 only took about five years to solidify into rock, and these rocks were potassium-argon dated as being 350,000 – 2.8 million years old.

Conclusion of dating techniques

Radiocarbon dating requires that there is no contamination within the sample.  It also requires that the amount of carbon in the atmosphere has been constant over time, which is obviously untrue. Due to this, calibration is used to provide a more accurate date, although the value used for calibration is based on assumption.

Isochron dating is based on the assumption that the daughter element is not present at the time the rock is formed, and that it has not entered or left the rock at any stage, and that the rate of decay has remained constant all of the time.

Radiometric and isochron dating are both based on assumption, and accuracy is always in doubt. There are flaws in all dating methods, which is why new methods are continually being sought after. Despite this, each new method is still treated as though it is irrefutable.

The definition of science, provided by the Oxford dictionary, is:

“The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.”

Dating techniques have been proven unreliable by using them against items created within a known date in human history, as shown above. In fact, observable science has never proved the Bible wrong, but has proved many theories of evolution wrong. Regardless of this, observable evidence is mostly ignored if it goes against the theory of evolution.

Evidence backing up the flood theory and young earth

Fossilisation is not a common occurrence. Dead things naturally decompose and are recycled back into the dust from which they came. In order to become fossils, dead organisms must be buried in matter containing water that is high in carbonates and rich in minerals: this prevents decomposition and causes tissue to be replaced by the minerals. Scientists agree that the process of fossilisation can take place quickly. Bones, for example, can fossilise within five to ten years.

Before they get a chance to fossilise, dead organisms could decompose, be eaten, or be destroyed in some other way; therefore, in order to become fossilised they must be buried quickly. A flood is the perfect way to create fossils: it provides a large amount of both water and mud in which to rapidly bury things.  There is plenty of geological evidence that supports a global cataclysmic flood of enormous proportions.

If a global cataclysmic flood did occur, it would only take days to create the sedimentary layers currently estimated as being millions of years old.  This would disprove the theory of evolution, or suggest that evolution occurred extremely quickly — at a speed of which we find no evidence today.

Even the most modern radiometric dating techniques are known to be flawed, and it is speculation that stratified layers have formed over millions of years.  This evidence suggests that the earth is far younger than the current estimates.

Scientists have taken fragments of factual evidence and attempted to piece them together in order to prove the theory of evolution.  Recent scientific discoveries, as mentioned above, take away any stability the theory has.  They also prove the high level of speculation surrounding many widely held claims.

Regardless of the facts, any evidence that goes against evolution is disregarded by scientists. The reason the flood theory is dismissed is that, along with the religious connection, it suggests that the sedimentary layers are not millions of years apart and neither are the fossils within them. Without millions of years there can be no evolution.

The Bible mentions the story of Noah and the ark, whereby eight people and various creatures were the only living things saved from a great flood that destroyed the rest of mankind. As well as the Bible mentioning that a great flood occurred, there are literally ‘hundreds’ of legends from ancient civilisations all over the world that mention a cataclysmic flood of enormous proportions, where the survivors escaped by a boat. Many of these stories, including that in the Bible, claim that the flood was a punishment for the wickedness of mankind.

The Central American Maya Civilisation was extremely advanced in its study of celestial activity, and had the most accurate calendar in the world — which retained its accuracy many hundreds of years after their demise. Every 5,125 years the Mayans believed that a cataclysmic cycle comprising heightened solar activity occurred, which caused a displacement in the rotation of the earth. The next cycle was calculated to occur on December 21st, 2012.

The Mayans claimed that the previous cycle (5,125 years prior to 2012) resulted in a great flood that left few survivors. This is very interesting as the beliefs of the Mayan civilisation not only support the flood theory but further suggest that the reason for it was due to displacement of the earth’s rotation.

By following the Biblical time line, and archaeological evidence, the age of the earth is presented as roughly 6,656 years old: with the time of the flood presented as exactly 1,656 years after the earth was created, and the time from after the flood until 2012 as roughly about 5,000 years (around 3,000 BC). This fits in perfectly with the Mayan calendar.

The oldest known written historical records only go back roughly 5,000 years, which would make sense if a global cataclysmic flood occurred at that time.  Also, dating trees by their rings has shown that the oldest tree was a bristlecone pine in Nevada, dated at 4,800 years old, well within the 5,000 years since the flood. According to the scientific community, we have no strong evidence that any tree has lived beyond 5,000 years

Scientists claim that cave paintings provide evidence of historical records, and that these go back as far as 65,000 years.  It is also claimed that trees currently still living in Tasmania and Sweden are up to 10,000 years old. While the trees themselves have definitely not lived for 10,000 years, it is claimed that they are part of root systems that have been alive for 10,000 years.

For the cave paintings, the highly unreliable radiocarbon dating method was used to determine the age of the paint.  Scientists agree that the accuracy of these readings is questionable, due to the very small size of material that was dated.  Also, there is still the question of why there was a sudden appearance of writing around 5,000 years ago, and nothing before that.  Regarding the age of the trees, as there is no way of dating living root systems, this was also determined by radiocarbon dating.

Evidence against evolution in mitochondrial DNA — the origin of man

Mitochondria are energy producing structures within cells, and they contain their own DNA — separate to our nuclear DNA. While our nuclear DNA is inherited from both parents, mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is inherited only through the mother. While each person’s mtDNA remains mostly identical to their mother’s, there is a rate of mutation that occurs. From this rate of mutation, the mtDNA of two people can be compared in order to determine how closely related they are.

The origin of modern man is claimed to be 200,000 years ago. This claim was based on estimated rates of mtDNA mutation, assuming that the estimated rate of mutation was constant, and based on the speculation that humans and chimpanzees had a common ancestor living 5 million years ago. Regardless of the speculation and pure assumption involved in this claim, it is still treated as a fact.

The First International Workshop on Human Mitochondrial DNA, held in October 1997, researched mtDNA mutation rates. Taking recent measurements into account, the researchers found that mutation rates in mtDNA were much higher than first thought, and the original estimate was changed from 200,000 years to 6,500 years — which is in line with the Biblical age of the earth. As this new evidence goes against the requirements of evolution, it is understandable why it has been disregarded.

In ScienceDaily, 27 October 2015, a report was published where scientists at Oxford University’s Research Laboratory for Archaeology, led by Professor Greger Larson, studied the genes of White Plymouth Rock chickens. The research brought about the discovery that two mutations had occurred in the mitochondrial genomes of the birds in only 50 years. This rate of mutation was 15 times faster than the accepted rate of change, being 2% per million years.

Scientists have cited this as evidence of evolution, even though no information leading to new functionality was added to the gene pool. The more important issue that has been ignored is that the observational evidence of a faster mtDNA mutation rate in the chickens backs up the research on mtDNA in 1997 (above), confirming that the origin of mankind is far earlier than the estimate of 200,000 years.

Conclusion — summary of evidence against evolution

Using the fossil record to prove transition between species is based on speculation. As with the disproved theory of horse evolution, we cannot guarantee that claimed transitional forms didn’t live together during the same time periods. They may have lived without having left any fossils, or their fossils could exist but remain undiscovered.

Similarities in DNA do not prove that organisms are closely related, as evolution suggests that some organisms have extremely high similarities through convergent evolution.

Any observed genetic changes within organisms have been brought on by the activation or deactivation of existing genes, by the alteration of existing functionality, or by the loss of genetic information. There is no observable evidence to suggest that information leading to new functionality can be added to the gene pool.  This in itself is evidence against evolution.

The claim that stratified rock layers provide a chronological time scale is based on speculation.  Observable evidence has shown that separate layers can be formed in days, with those produced from the eruption of Mount St. Helens in 1980 being a perfect example.

Observable evidence has shown that mudrock does not require millions of years to form. Due to 80% of the geologic column consisting of mudrock, this signifies that the age of the earth is many millions of years younger than claimed.

Even the most modern method of dating igneous rock is based on speculation, involving assumptions.  This has been proven unreliable when used on rock created within our lifetime.

Evidence suggests that large amounts of sediment were deposited by a global cataclysmic flood and volcanic activity, along with an extreme rainfall event.  This created a vast proportion of the sedimentary and igneous strata we see today, and the fossils and coal within them.

Organisms must be rapidly buried in mud for fossilisation to occur; therefore, given the amount of fossils in the stratified layers, a cataclysmic flood is more likely to have occurred.

Stories from hundreds of civilisations around the world also back up the claim of a global cataclysmic flood.  As evolution requires millions of years, scientists reject the flood theory as it suggests that sediment layers were formed rapidly.

The origin of man is claimed to be 200,000 years ago.  This is not only based on assumption, but also goes against new reliable scientific evidence, which suggests that mankind originated 6,500 years ago.

It is strange how modern man prefers to teach evolution and hold it as fact, yet completely dismisses new scientific evidence against evolution. Such evidence is ignored purely to uphold the theory of evolution.  Mankind will dismiss anything that could back up the existence of God.

“There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution.” — George Wald, PhD, Harvard University (Nobel Prize Winner), Scientific American Vol. 199, 1958

For more detailed information the following Websites are recommended for reference: