Birds evolved from a group of meat-eating dinosaurs called...

Birds evolved from a group of meat-eating dinosaurs called theropods. That's the same group that Tyrannosaurus rex belonged to, although birds evolved from small theropods, not huge ones like T. rex. The oldest bird fossils are about 150 million years old.

Laughable
Fairytales for adults

off your order with code SUMMER24

Ten Major Flaws of Evolution - Revised

Randy Alcorn, founder of EPM

BY RANDY ALCORN, JIM DARNALL

October 3, 2010

I wrote the following article many years ago, and it has now been through two revisions. Thanks to Phil Gaskill for working on the latest revision and providing additional updated information.

1. The complexity of living systems could never evolve by chance—they had to be designed and created.

A system that is irreducibly complex is one in which all the components work together and are essential to perform the system’s basic function. (A mousetrap is a simple example.) It is not possible to build such a system gradually, one component at a time, since it cannot function unless all components are present. Many living systems exhibit such irreducible complexity (e.g vision, blood clotting, etc.). When you look at a watch, you assume there was a watchmaker. A watch is too complex to “happen” by chance. Yet living systems are vastly more complex than a watch. Darwin considered this fact one of the most serious challenges to his theory of evolution. The magnitude of this challenge has increased exponentially since Darwin’s time as the details of living systems have been uncovered down to and below the level of the cell. The incredible machinery of life exists in networks so complex and interdependent that they could not have arisen gradually or through random chance – they simply had to be designed and created.

2. The high information content of DNA could only have come from intelligence.

According to information science, information can only be produced by intelligence. Highly complex information must originate from a highly intelligent source. DNA is by far the most compact and complex information storage/retrieval system known. A pinhead-sized amount of DNA has a billion times more information capacity than a 4-gigabit hard drive, can contain multiple copies of all the information necessary to build and maintain things as complex as the human brain and body, and is self-replicating. However, the proponents of evolution believe that random chance, not intelligence, gave rise to all of the information found in DNA. Ironically, evolutionary scientists involved in the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) project search the sky with massive radio telescopes, hoping to detect even simple patterns in radio signals which might be a sign of otherworldly intelligence, all the while ignoring the clear evidence of intelligence built into the incredibly complex DNA patterns of every living creature right here on Earth.

3. Mutations do not increase information, as required by evolution.

Mutations are thought to drive evolution, but they cannot increase information. Mutations can only change DNA by deleting, damaging, duplicating, or substituting already existing information. The vast majority of mutations are harmful or have no apparent effect. Over 100 years of fruit fly experiments have clearly demonstrated that mutations only result in normal, dead, or grotesquely deformed fruit flies – they are still fruit flies! Even mutations which are in some way beneficial (such as antibiotic resistance in bacteria or wingless beetles on windy islands) result from the loss of information. This is the opposite of the vast increase in information required to get from amoeba to man, as proposed in the theory of evolution.

4. Natural Selection is conservative, not creative.

The concept of natural selection was originally developed by natural theologians, who thought that it worked to preserve distinct created types.

Darwin argued that natural selection, if given enough time, could actually create new types.

However, field and laboratory observations of natural selection in action confirm that it only changes the relative abundance of certain already-existing characteristics, and doesn’t create new ones.

For example, Darwin observed that the average beak size of finches increased in dry years, but later observers noted that this trend reversed in wet years.

This is very different than the kind of changes that would be required to transform a finch beak into some other structure or a finch into a completely different kind of animal.

In other words, scientific studies of natural selection demonstrate, without exception, that Darwin was wrong.

There is a total lack of undisputed examples (fossilized or living) of the millions of transitional forms required for evolution to be true.

If evolution were true, we should be surrounded by a zoo of transitional forms that cannot be categorized as one particular life form.

But we don’t see this—there are different kinds of dogs, but all are clearly dogs.

The fossils show different sizes of horses, but all are clearly horses.

None is on the verge of being some other life form.

The fossil record shows complex fossilized life suddenly appearing, and there are major gaps between every major “kind” of life.

Darwin acknowledged that if his theory were true, it would require millions of transitional forms.

He believed they would be found in fossil records.

They haven’t been.

What he observed on the Galapagos islands was variation within a kind,the finches had observable variation Manny,but what were they at the end of the observation?

Still Finches

To say that eventually they would turn into a whole new species or variation,is belief,this is what Darwin assumed would happen.

Observing variation within a type or species is science,assuming something becomes something else is where science becomes belief