Evidence Against Evolution

Last updated on July 19th, 2022

There is plenty of evidence against evolution, with modern scientific discoveries revealing weaknesses in the theory.  The theory of evolution is based on a great deal of speculation.  While scientists fervently promote evolution, making many claims without having firm evidence to back them up, it is clear that many discoveries providing factual evidence against evolution are being ignored or downplayed. This article covers these issues 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 evolution is a fact are pointless, as there are two main scales:

Microevolution is where organisms adapt and change in various small ways (e.g. colour, size, shape), and are sometimes classified as new species (a term referred to as speciation) — we have evidence of this.

Macroevolution is the belief that the small changes can gradually cause an organism to adapt into a completely different kind of species on a large scale (e.g. fish to mammals) — for which there is no conclusive evidence.

While we have witnessed adaptation within species, and the creation of new species, we have never witnessed one kind of organism evolving into another (e.g. a dog evolving into a horse). Macroevolution is claimed to be a fact, even though there is no conclusive evidence to back up the theory.  There is a need to distinguish between what is proven, without doubt, and what is based upon speculation.


Microevolution occurs via genetic changes, which become dominant through natural selection. There is evidence of species evolving on a small scale, some of which become separate species altogether.

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 if activated, at what intensity they are expressed. These modifications can affect multiple organisms simultaneously, and are passed on via natural selection.

Both gene mutation and epigenetic modifications can be inherited, but neither adds information to the gene pool that can develop new functions. For evolution to occur, genes providing new functions need to be generated.

The peppered moth, native to Britain, is naturally a light grey colour peppered with specks of black. Their colour is the perfect camouflage 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, and this was claimed to be evidence of evolution in action.

It was later discovered that the moths changed colour due to a genetic mutation, where they gained darker pigments. Any moth having this mutation would originally have been more vulnerable to predation, as it would be more visible. Due to the environment being darker, darker moths had a higher survival rate, passing on their genes via natural selection. The Clean Air Act of 1956 cut pollution levels dramatically, and 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 not due to new functionality being added to the gene pool. 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.

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 quite often these variations do not perform well in the wild. Whereas wild sheep shed their wool naturally, selective breeding has prevented domesticated sheep from shedding their wool, resulting in the requirement of shearing. Artificial selection has brought about many other detrimental effects in animals, such as trouble in giving birth. 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: there is no factual evidence of a bird changing into anything other than a bird, and we find no observable evidence to show that any organisms have changed into any other kind than what they originally were.


There is no conclusive evidence that proves macroevolution. A species changing into a completely different kind of species on a large scale (e.g. fish to mammals) has never been observed. This would have to take place over millions of years, and the only purported evidence of this occurring is in fossil records or DNA.  The claimed evidence is based on similarities between organisms, but provides no actual proof.

As fossils of simple organisms are found in the lowest rock layers, and become more complex with each higher layer, it is claimed that this reveals the transition of one species to another. This is speculation.

While many fossils are considered transitional, they could also be the same organism at different stages of life, or separate species of the same kind. Some supposed transitional fossils have now been discovered to persist unchanged throughout the same timelines, proving that the separate organisms lived together rather than one evolving into another. This reveals just how unsubstantiated the claims of macroevolution are.

There are several organisms that were thought to be extinct that are still alive today, showing no evolutionary changes. These are what are known as ‘living fossils’. One example is the coelacanth, a fish thought to have become extinct around 65 million years ago — based on the age of the fossils discovered. In 1938 a surprise discovery revealed that coelacanths were still alive, and that they were relatively unchanged from their fossilised ancestors.

Although the fossil of an organism may only have been discovered in a certain layer, this does not signify that it only lived within the timeline the layer represents. As with the coelacanth, the organism may have lived for millions of years without having left any fossils at all. For this reason alone, it is obvious that any claims of transition between species based on fossil records are purely speculative.

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 around 541 million years ago (during the Cambrian Period). This sudden emergence of such diverse organisms goes against the estimated rate of evolution. Some scientists claim that, rather than a rapid transition, these cases represent a large increase in fossilisation at that time. Either way, this proves the unreliability of using fossil records as evidence of transition between species.

The fossil record itself does not provide any 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.

Evolution from dinosaurs to birds

If dinosaurs evolved into birds, as evolution claims, we would expect to find fossils of dinosaurs in intermediary transitional stages, with feathers either partially formed or only covering certain parts of the body.  Evidence goes against this, as all fossils of birds with reptilian features have had fully-formed feathers; there is none that has anything in-between.

All claims of feather-like structures related to dinosaurs are speculative, and there is no proof that the structures are associated with feathers at all. Sometimes 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).

Specimens such as Sinosauropteryx, which scientists claim lived in the Cretaceous Period (around 130 million years ago), have what appear to be feather-like structures. Many scientists agree that the structures on such fossils are actually partially degraded collagen fibres beneath the skin – which are known to show feather-like patterns.

In Germany, fossils have been discovered of a lizard-like bird named Archaeopteryx, which scientists claim lived in 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, and reptilian teeth instead of a beak. Each fossil varies slightly in size, and has varying sizes of claws and teeth, which is claimed to show stages of evolution.

Regardless of having some reptilian features, Archaeopteryx is classified as a bird, had fully formed feathers like modern birds, and was able to fly, albeit rather poorly. Archaeopteryx also predates any fossils of dinosaurs claimed to have feather-like structures (e.g. Sinosauropteryx) 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. What actually occurred was that a random mutation caused a gene to become inactivated, resulting in the loss of teeth. 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 in 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.

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 esophagus and crop to digest its food, different from any other bird, and yet it is obviously nothing more than a bird.

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. The fact that all of the fossils are so similar is a blow to the theory of evolution — offering no visible evidence of a gradual transition.

DNA similarities and evolution

It is claimed that high similarities in DNA are proof that species are closely related – at least this is what everyone is led to believe. 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 the data. Regardless of this, basing evolution on DNA similarity is speculative, and if we hold to this theory it would mean that bats are more closely related to horses than cows are. It is rarely mentioned that humans and mice have about 85% similarity in DNA, and the Abyssinian domestic cat has about 90% similarity in DNA with humans.

Another claim that seems to be ignored is that humans and pigs also have about 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. They claim that the similarities are due to convergent evolution, where organisms independently evolve in a similar way due to environmental factors. There are many other cases of convergent evolution, revealing organisms that independently developed miraculously similar features. One example is that of bats and dolphins developing echo location.

As scientists do not consider humans and pigs to be closely related, this is in conflict with the claim that organisms are more closely related to others that share high similarities in DNA (e.g. humans and chimpanzees).

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.

Human evolution

It is claimed that humans evolved from apelike ancestors over millions of years. Evidence associated with this claim is meagre, being based mainly on the discovery of just a few bones or skull fragments. Being dated by the rock they are found in, the skull fragments are claimed to alter dramatically throughout the geologic timelines. Due to this it is assumed that there were various human species that evolved at differing rates. Although they are claimed to be 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.

Many acclaimed early human fossils were later found to be hoaxes. The Piltdown Man fossil was discovered to be the skull of a great ape doctored to appear as an early human. The discovery of a tooth in Nebraska lead to the claim of Nebraska Man, which turned out to be the tooth of a wild pig. As these discoveries were once held as pillars in the theory of human evolution, it reveals how weak the evidence associated with the theory is.

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 have an anatomy that suggests more human-like movement, and there are claims that some of these ‘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 example 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.

Regardless of this, Lucy is obviously nothing more than an ape.  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 incorrect assumptions were made regarding these.  Years later fossils of the same species were discovered, and analysis of the wrist revealed that Lucy was in fact a knuckle-walker (such as chimpanzees), and the toes were also curved, similar to tree dwelling apes.  In fact, apart from the hip, leg and knee, Lucy was very similar to a chimpanzee — including the skull and brain.

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. The claim that bipedalism proves humans evolved from an apelike ancestor is speculation.

On October 18th 2013, Science Magazine contained an article regarding a complete skull that was found in Dmanisi, Georgia in 2005. The skull was dated as being almost 2 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. In 2014, the journal Nature published an article where 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 scientific discoveries, preferring to uphold previously held opinions.

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 to be 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 of the matter is that some scientific theories (e.g. the existence of parallel universes) are as far-fetched as the idea of God and heaven, and yet, as they 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, and seem unable to let them go. 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 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. 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.

In 1980, at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, a four-day conference was held by 150 pro-evolution scientists who admitted that, as written in the Houston Chronicle of November 1980, “Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct.”

Even though it has been proven false, the theory of the evolution of the horse is still promoted in literature and on Websites today.

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 purported 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.

Macroevolution is a theory based upon speculation, and although there are no reliable facts to back it up it is accepted and taught as though it is factual. The deeper one delves into the facts used to explain macroevolution the more one has to question whether it can be true.

Flaws in the theory of macroevolution through mutation

A gene is a sequence within DNA that informs cells how to make a particular protein. 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. It is claimed that the remaining 98.8% of DNA is non-coding, referred to as ‘junk DNA’. For evolution to occur, information that develops new functionality needs to be added to the gene pool — which would have to occur through mutation.

A point mutation is where the elements of a specific gene are changed. Sometimes they change position, become reversed, are removed, or are added. In some cases new genes are formed from so-called ‘junk 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. Each gene caters for specific functionality, and while mutations can cause the gene to alter, the alterations do not change the function of the protein the gene creates. In many cases, even in those that are beneficial, such changes originate from the loss of information.

The result of mutation is instability within the genome, and is the cause of devastating genetic disorders, such as sickle cell anemia. In experiments with fruit flies, some mutations caused legs to appear where antennae should be. The code for developing legs and antennae already existed, so although they changed places, no new functionality was added. A de novo gene discovered in the house mouse resulted in better regulation of reproductive cycles in the mice; however, this was caused by the loss of a protein.

Experiments on 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 over 80 years, scientists have witnessed the number of generations of fruit fly equal to what would take mankind millions of years to achieve. The experiments have produced no evidence of fruit flies 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.

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 proof of macroevolution. 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 the addition of genetic information. On the contrary, the mutation occurred from the loss of genetic information.

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.

When mutation of genetic information occurs the change is random, and the only result of this can be instability. While a mutation may appear beneficial in laboratory conditions, the bacteria also 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 macroevolution occurs through mutation is unproven. In fact, quite the opposite is true: experiments on fruit flies and bacteria have done more to prove that mutation does not lead to macroevolution. It is clear that mutation and natural selection can only remove functional information from the gene pool, and do not add any information that develops new functionality. Without the addition of new functionality macroevolution cannot occur.

The perfection of random mutations

Organisms cannot willingly create changes within themselves. Dinosaurs could not influence the development of feathers or the dropping of their teeth because they wished to fly. Any changes occurring within an organism must come from random mutations.

Although some mutations could be of benefit, many would be worthless, and many would become an encumbrance that wiped out the variation. Surely if macroevolution 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. Consider the transformation of a caterpillar to a butterfly: while in its cocoon 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 hinderance.

Rather than seeing many cases of flawed mutations, we see a vast number of organisms with perfect features that seem incredible. Evolution suggests that structures appeared on a reptile’s body, and these evolved into feathers.  Birds have 6 different types of feather, which are miraculously perfect for achieving flight.  Each feather is positioned in just the right place, causing the wing to act as an aerofoil to provide lift. It is shockingly hard to believe that this 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; and its tongue is perfectly developed for extracting blood, having a groove in which blood is drawn via a capillary action. On top of this there is the fact that it can detect blood, using infrared sensors. The chance of such 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 to intelligent design.  After all, there is nothing clever about random occurrences, and organisms themselves are unable to affect their own evolution.

Mutation through necessity?

In some organisms there is a distinct lack of mutation. Fossils of creatures claimed to have originated in 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. Evolution through mutation suggests that it is impossible for an organism to have hardly evolved in this way. For several of them to be found 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. This would alter the form of the organism, or it could become two separate species — such as Darwin’s finches.

Fossils, geological layers and the unreliability of dating methods

New layers of the earth 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. Due to the fact that these layers are constantly building up, and considering the depth of them, scientists assume that all of the earth’s layers have formed very slowly in this way over billions of years.

Evidence against sedimentary layers being millions of years old

The geologic column is a representation of each successive rock layer as it was laid down, combining all individual rock layers throughout the world in a single column.

Some rock layers are dated via relative dating, where an estimated date is obtained, based on comparison to layers within the geologic column. Other rock layers are dated via radiometric dating, based on the decay of radioactive elements within the rock. 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 purely speculative.

The geologic timescale is unreliable. Fossils only found within certain layers are referred to as ‘index fossils,’ which scientists then use to date specific rock layers. 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 speculative. 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 1965, at Bijou Creek in Colorado, flooding occurred after 48 hours of rain. 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. As observable evidence shows that multiple stratified layers can be formed quickly, this evidence disproves the claim that individual rock layers (strata) 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, where it 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 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 one would expect from erosion.

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 report was published on the deposition of mud, covering research 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 data going against a widely-held theory is disregarded.  A great deal of evidence against evolution is disregarded in this fashion.

In 1946, millions of fossils of soft tissued 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 layers 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, until the discovery of these fossils disproved this speculation.

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 sedimentary layers 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 cast doubt upon the claimed age of sedimentary rock.

Scientists claim there is evidence that mass extinction events have occurred in the past. The Permian-Triassic extinction event, claimed to be the biggest mass extinction, is said to have wiped out about 95% of species. Reasons for this occurrence are listed as changes in sea level, along with massive volcanic eruptions that ignited organic matter. The eruptions also released a large quantity of material, including mercury and greenhouse gasses, into the atmosphere, causing climate change.

Scientists have always told us 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 suggests that a global cataclysmic flood, along with volcanic activity, deposited large amounts of sediment, creating a vast proportion of the stratified layers we see today. As organisms must be rapidly buried in mud for fossils to form, and given the amount of fossils in the stratified layers, a cataclysmic flood is likely to have occurred. As evolution requires millions of years, scientists reject the flood theory as it suggests that sediment layers were formed rapidly.

Polystrate fossils — proof of rapid formation of layers

Some strata that are claimed to have been laid over millions of years have been found to contain fossils of upright trees extending through them, suggesting that they were 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 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 is 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 vast amount of polystrate tree fossils have been discovered within cliffs at the Bay of Fundy, near Joggins, Nova Scotia. Some of the tree fossils have been found to extend through coal seams, and in some cases multiple coal seams — which scientists claim take millions of years to form. 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. Contrary to this speculative opinion, observable evidence has shown us how a cataclysmic event can produce such fossils. The landslides caused by the eruption of Mt. 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 expected evolutionary changes, further suggesting that peat formation in these situations was rapid. It is clear that peat can form quickly based on observable evidence. Bark from the trees deposited into Spirit Lake from the landslides of Mt. St. Helens rapidly formed a peat layer, matching the composition found within coal layers.

To further counter the claim that coal can only be formed over a very long period, a form of coal has been created within months at Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois. The process did not require any decay in the vegetation, just the presence of organic material along with thermal reactions. In 1972, the book ‘Earth’s Most Challenging Mysteries’, by Reginald Daly, mentions a situation where the wooden piles supporting a railway bridge near Freiburg in Germany were found to have partially turned to coal.

The unreliability of radiocarbon dating

Radiocarbon dating (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 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 60,000 years. According to scientists, any organism having died over 60,000 years ago would contain insufficient carbon-14, 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 60,000 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 via the use of fossil fuels, gases released through earthquakes, and through volcanic activity – which releases carbon-12 from limestone and substrates (at a rate scientists are unable to accurately calculate).  This greatly affects the validity of radiocarbon dating.

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. Moreover, the ratio of radiocarbon between these remains is similar, concluding that they were living around the same time period. When faced with this argument, scientists usually make a conflicting claim that this is due to radiocarbon dating only having accuracy up to 20,000 years, confirming the truth of how unreliable this method is.

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 calculated as being 6,000 years old. Is this evidence reliable?

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 tecniques, 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.

In 1980, in the space of just one day, the volcanic eruption of Mt. St. Helens created 17 mile long canyons up to 140 feet deep, and deposited stratified layers over 100 feet thick. The sedimentary layers of Arizona’s Grand Canyon and those from the eruption of Mount St. Helens are stratified in the same way and yet scientists claim those in the Grand Canyon took millions of years to form. 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 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.

There are always estimates related to radiometric and isochron dating, 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, the observable 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. To become fossils dead organisms must be buried in matter containing water that is rich in minerals and high in carbonates: 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 by other organisms; therefore, in order to become fossilised they must be buried quickly. A flood is the perfect way to create fossils: it provides large amounts of both water and mud in which to rapidly bury things, and there is plenty of geological evidence that supports a global cataclysmic flood of enormous proportions.

If a global cataclysmic flood did occur, taking just days to create sedimentary layers estimated as being millions of years old, it would disprove the theory of evolution or suggest that man evolved extremely quickly — at a speed of which we find no evidence today. Evidence suggests that even the most modern radiometric dating techniques are flawed, and it is speculation that stratified layers have formed over billions of years, leading us to believe that the earth could easily be far younger.

Scientists have taken fragments of factual evidence and attempted to piece them together in order to prove the theory of macroevolution; however, discoveries such as those mentioned here take away any stability the theory has. Regardless of the facts, anything that does not fit in with macroevolution is brushed under the carpet 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 macroevolution.

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 timelines within the Bible 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 now as roughly about 5,000 years. This fits in perfectly with the Mayan calendar. The oldest known historical records only go back roughly 5,000 years, which would make sense if a global cataclysmic flood occurred at that time.

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. We have no strong evidence that any tree has lived beyond 5,000 years.

Scientists have claimed that other trees currently still living in Tasmania and Sweden are up to 10,000 years old. They claim that the trees themselves have not lived for 10,000 years, but are part of root systems that have been alive for 10,000 years. As there is no way of dating living root systems, the highly unreliable carbon dating method was used to determine the age.

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 involved in this claim, it is still treated as though it is 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 presents a conflict with evolutionary requirements, it is understandable why scientists have also brushed this new information under the carpet.

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 new functionality had been 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 birds 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.


Using the fossil record to prove transition between species is based on assumption. As with the disproved theory of horse evolution, we cannot guarantee that the 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/deactivation of existing genes, or the loss of genetic information. There is no observable evidence to suggest that new functionality can be added to the gene pool.  This in itself is evidence against evolution.

The claim that stratified rock layers provide chronological timelines is based on assumption, and observable evidence has shown that separate layers can be formed in days. Observable evidence has shown us 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 methods of dating rock are based on assumption, and have been proven unreliable when used on rock created within our lifetime.

Evidence shows us how a cataclysmic global flood, along with volcanic activity, could have caused the stratified layers we see today, including the fossils and coal within them. Stories from hundreds of civilisations around the world also back up the claim of a global cataclysmic flood.

The origin of man, claimed to be 200,000 years ago, is based on assumption, and ignores new reliable scientific evidence suggesting 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. It is for the sake of evolution that this evidence is ignored. 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: