Forums - General Discussion - I don't believe in evolution (very long post)

I don't believe in evolution or more specifically that all life evolved from some common ancestor because there is no scientific evidence to support it.

Just a few examples why I think that:


It was expected to find transitional fossils but:



(Ridley, Mark, “Who doubts evolution?” New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831.

Gould, Stephen J., ‘Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?’ Paleobiology, Vol. 6(1), January 1980, p. 127.

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the gradual transformation of its ancestors: it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’”
Steven Jay Gould (Harvard University), Evolution’s erratic pace, Natural History 86(5):14, May 1977.

Stephen Jay Gould, The Panda’s Thumb, 1980,pp.179-181.

Dr. David M. Raup (U. of Chicago - Field Museum), “Evolution and the Fossil Record,” Science, Vol. 213 (July 17, 1981), p. 289.





"The lack of ancestral or intermediate forms between fossil species is not a bizarre peculiarity of early metazoan history. Gaps are general and prevalent throughout the fossil record." (Raff R.A, and Kaufman, T.C., Embryos, Genes, and Evolution: The Developmental-Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change, 1991, p. 34.)




New Scientist, 20 May, 1982.

“Many evolutionary biologists since Darwin’s time, and even Darwin himself, have been struck by how few sequences of fossils have ever been found that clearly show a gradual, steady accumulation of small changes in evolutionary lineages. Instead, most fossil species appear suddenly, withouttransitional forms, in a layer of rock and persist essentially unchanged until disappearing from the record of rocks as suddenly as they appeared.”
Campbell, et al., Biology Concepts and Connections, 3rd Ed., p 290, 2000.


George Gaylord Simpson, another leading evolutionist, sees this characteristic in practically the whole range of taxonomic categories:
“…Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.” [George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press]

Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from one ancestral form to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series. New types often appear quite suddenly, and their immediate ancestors are absent in the geological strata. The discovery of unbroken series of species changing gradually into descending species is very rare. Indeed the fossil record is one of discontinuities, seemingly documenting jumps (saltations) from one type of organism to a different type. This raises a puzzling question: Why does the fossil record fail to reflect the gradual change one would expect from evolution?


Stasis on the morphological level

Evolutionists didn't expect to find organisms to stay the same morphologically for millions and millions of years as shown with discoveries of "living fossils" and "amber fossils":

“Stasis, or nonchange, of most fossil species during their lengthy geological lifespans was tacitly acknowledged by all paleontologists, but almost never studied explicitly because prevailing theory treated stasis as uninteresting nonevidence for nonevolution. ...The overwhelming prevalence of stasis became an embarrassing feature of the fossil record, best left ignored as a manifestation of nothing (that is, nonevolution).” Stephen J. Gould, "Cordelia's Dilemma," Natural History, 1993, p15

Niles Eldredge remarked: “In the context of Darwin’s own founding conceptions, and certainly from the perspective of the modern synthesis, living fossils are something of an enigma, if not an embarrassment.” (Eldredge and Stanley p. 272)

Peter Ward in his 1992 book terms living fossils “evolutionary curiosities, more embarrassments to the theory of evolution than anything else.” (p. 13)



Stasis on the DNA Level

There are many ancient bacteria spores recovered and ‘revived’ from salt crystals and amber crystals which have been compared to their living descendants of today. Some bacterium spores, in salt crystals, dating back as far as 250 million years have been revived, had their DNA sequenced, and compared to their offspring of today (Vreeland RH, 2000 Nature). To the disbelieving shock of many scientists, both ancient and modern bacteria were found to have the almost same exact DNA sequence.

Evolutionists expected DNA sequence after millions of years to be different. It has often used as a cop-out to stasis of organisms in terms of morphology.

The Paradox of the “Ancient” Bacterium Which Contains “Modern” Protein-Coding Genes:
“Almost without exception, bacteria isolated from ancient material have proven to closely resemble modern bacteria at both morphological and molecular levels.” Heather Maughan*, C. William Birky Jr., Wayne L. Nicholson, William D. Rosenzweig§ and Russell H. Vreeland ;


Vestigial structures



But Now:

"Many of the so-called vestigial organs are now known to fulfill important functions” (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1946 ed., Vo1. 8, p. 926).

'Anatomically the appendix shows evidence of a lymphoid function … There is experimental evidence as well that the vermiform appendix is a lymphoid organ which acts as reservoir of antibody producing cells.' "Do 'Vestigial Organs' Provide Evidence for Evolution?" Evolutionary Theory - Vol. 5 (May 1981) p.175.

Leg bones in whales: "Evolutionists often point to vestigial hind legs near the pelvis. But these are found only in the Right Whale. and upon closer inspection turn out to be strengthening bones to the genital wall." —John C. Whitcomb, Early Earth (1988), p. 84.

Evolutionist Scadding wrote: "I suspect that this argument; [functionless organs] gained widespread use not because it proves anything about evolution, but because it was thought to have particular force against some varieties of creationism….

"There is no way, however, in which this negative assertion [i.e., the organ has no function) can be arrived at scientifically. That is, one can not prove that something does not exist . . since of course if it does not exist one cannot observe it, and therefore one can say nothing about it scientifically….

"Such an argument, from ignorance, or from negative results, is not valid scientifically, and has no place in observational science…. Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure of the argument is not scientifically valid, I conclude that 'vestigial organs' provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution" (S. Scadding, "Evolutionary Theory," quoted in CRSQ. December 1982, p. 190).

"The existence of functionless ‘vestigial organs’ was presented by Darwin, and is often cited by current biology textbooks, as part of the evidence for evolution . . An analysis of the difficulties in unambiguously identifying functionless structures . . leads to the conclusion that ‘vestigial organs’ provide no evidence for evolutionary theory."—*S.R. Scadding, "Do ‘Vestigial Organs’ Provide Evidence for Evolution?" Evolutionary Theory, Vol. 5 (May 1981), p. 394.

"Its shortcomings have been almost universally pointed out by modern authors, but the idea still has a prominent place in biological mythology" (P. Erlich and R. Holm, 1963, The Process of Evolution, p. 66).

For those who don't know The list of vestigial organs in humans has shrunk from 180 in 1890 to 0 today.


Reviving 20 million year old (supposedly) bacteria

“Raul J. Cano and Monica K. Borucki discovered the bacteria preserved within the abdomens of insects encased in pieces of amber. In the last 4 years, they have revived more than 1,000 types of bacteria and microorganisms — some dating back as far as 135 million years ago, during the age of the dinosaurs.,,, In October 2000, another research group used many of the techniques developed by Cano’s lab to revive 250-million-year-old bacteria from spores trapped in salt crystals. With this additional evidence, it now seems that the “impossible” is true.”

Dr. Cano and his former graduate student Dr. Monica K. Borucki said that they had found slight but significant differences between the DNA of the ancient, 25-40 million year old amber-sealed Bacillus sphaericus and that of its modern counterpart,(thus ruling out that it is a modern contaminant, yet at the same time confounding materialists, since the change is not nearly as great as evolution’s ‘genetic drift’ theory requires.)

Dr. Cano’s work on ancient bacteria came in for intense scrutiny since it did not conform to Darwinian predictions, and since people found it hard to believe you could revive something that was millions of years old. Yet Dr. Cano has been vindicated:

“After the onslaught of publicity and worldwide attention (and scrutiny) after the publication of our discovery in Science, there have been, as expected, a considerable number of challenges to our claims, but in this case, the scientific method has smiled on us. There have been at least three independent verifications of the isolation of a living microorganism from amber.”


Random mutations don't add  genetic information.

Random mutations are very relevant otherwise there is no other source for new genetic information rendering it impossible to get a primordial cell to an ape in a few billion years. It is predicted that random mutations would at least some time add novel genetic information. No scientific evidence it does. If fact, scientific evidence shows the exact opposite happens: genetic entropy.

"The one systematic effect of mutation seems to be a tendency towards degeneration."—*Sewall Wright?, in Julian Huxley?, "The Statistical Consequences of Mendelian Heredity in relation to Speciation," The New Systematics, p. 174.

"Like radiation-induced mutations, nearly all spontaneous mutations with detectable effects are harmful."—Arthur Custance, Longevity in Antiquity, p. 1160.

"The fact that most mutations are damaging to the organism seems hard to reconcile with the view that mutation is the source of raw materials for evolution. Indeed, mutants illustrated in biology textbooks are a collection of freaks and monstrosities, and mutations seem to be destructive rather than a constructive process."—*Encyclopedia Americana?, Vol. 10, p. 742.

"Do we, therefore, ever see mutations going about the business of producing new structures for selection to work on? No nascent organ has ever been observed emerging, though their origin in pre-functional form is basic to evolutionary theory. Some should be visible today, occurring in organisms at various stages up to integration of a functional new system, but we don't see them: There is no sign at all of this kind of radical novelty. Neither observation nor controlled experiments has shown natural selection manipulating mutations so as to produce a new gene, hormone, enzyme system, or organ."—*Michael Pitman?, Adam and Evolution, pp. 67-68.

"Upon rigorous examination and analysis, any dogmatic assertion . . that gene mutations are the raw material for an evolutionary process involving natural selection is an utterance of a myth."—*John N. Moore, On Chromosomes, Mutations, and Phylogeny, p. 5.

"This is really the theory that [says] if you start with fourteen lines of coherent English and change it one letter at a time, keeping only those things that still make sense, you will eventually finish up with one of the sonnets of Shakespeare . . it strikes me as a lunatic sort of logic, and I think we should be able to do better."—*C.H. Waddington [a geneticist], "Evolution," in Science Today, p. 38.


"Leading scientist Brian Sykes believes that long-term deterioration of the Y chromosome, which contains the gene that confers maleness, means that the male species is doomed.

Why have we not died 100 times over?

"t is well known that when s, the selection coefficient against a deleterious mutation, is below 1/4 ~ Ne , where Ne is the effective population size, the expected frequency of this mutation is ~ 0.5, if forward and backward mutation rates are similar. Thus, if the genome size, G, in nucleotides substantially exceeds the Ne of the whole species, there is a dangerous range of selection coefficients, 1/ G less than s less than 1/4 N e . Mutations with s within this range are neutral enough to accumulate almost freely, but are still deleterious enough to make an impact at the level of the whole genome. In many vertebrates Ne ~ 10 , while G ~ 10 , so that the dangerous range includes more than four orders of magnitude. If substitutions at 10% of all nucleotide sites have selection coefficients within this range with the mean 10 , an average individual carries ~ 100 lethal equivalents. Some data suggest that a substantial fraction of nucleotides typical to a species may, indeed, be suboptimal."


Junk DNA


Recent scientific evidence says otherwise:


"What was once considered "junk DNA" now holds the keys to many novel gene regulatory mechanisms..."

Of course there are numerous more studies that shatters the "Junk DNA" myth. According to Jonathan Wells (received two Ph.D.s, one in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California at Berkeley) exposes the myth in his book aptly titled "The Myth of Junk DNA"


Dino cadavers

According to the evolutionists' story/scenario, dinosaurs died out millions of years ago which supposedly paved the way for mammals to evolve. But something is not quite right with recent dino discoveries which points to dinosaurs dying relatively recently and co-existing with man.

Scientists have discovered a dino cadaver that still retained its stench and still has fossilized red blood cells:

    ""The guy looked at it and said, 'Do you realize you've got red blood cells in that bone?' " Schweitzer remembers.

    Once, when she was working with a T. rex skeleton harvested from Hell Creek?, she noticed that the fossil exuded a distinctly organic odor. "It smelled just like one of the cadavers we had in the lab who had been treated with chemotherapy before he died," she says."


What do some scientists have to say about it?

Dr. David Menton, Ph.D. in cell biology from Brown University? wrote that "it certainly taxes one's imagination to believe that soft tissue and cells could remain so relatively fresh in appearance for the tens of millions of years of supposed evolutionary history. this would be a tall order, even if they were kept frozen in liquid nitrogen in a lab."

Jeffrey Bada, an organic geochemist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego: "Even if the T. rex had died in a colder, drier climate than Hell Creek, environmental radiation would have degraded its body....Bones absorb uranium and thorium like crazy. You've got an internal dose that will wipe out biomolecules."

Mary Schweitzer? said herself "um well, it is it's very amazing it's utterly shocking actually, because it flies in the face of everything we understand about how cells, and tissues degrade..."

"It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn't believe it. I said to the lab technician: The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?"

Can anyone with a sound, rational mind say with a straight face these dinos died 65+ million years ago? I'm talking about SIXTY FIVE MILLION YEARS! That's an awfully lot of years. I think it's time to give up the evolution fairy tale story and develop a new paradigm.

Another scientists discovered a supposed 67 million year 3D dino mummy that still retained skin structure and may possibly retained its organs. Oh, they suspect the dino was buried rapidly. Hmmm could it have been Noah's Flood?

Info on the the Dino mummy:


Dinosaurs/Dragons in writing hundreds of years ago

Art depictions of dinosaurs/dragons throughout the world


The Tree of Life shown by molecular phylogenetic analysis

Evolutionists often claim that universal common ancestry and the “tree of life” are established facts.

This figure below from a leading textbook [George Johnson, Jonathan Losos, The Living World, Fifth Edition, McGraw Hill, 2008.] is typical. G8E/s320/JohnsonTextTOL.JPG

According to Dr. Jonathan Wells: " [Darwin] believed that the differences among modem species arose primarily through natural selection, or survival of the fittest, and he described the whole process as "descent with modification."

"Biologists in the 1970's began testing Darwin's branching tree pattern by comparing molecules in various species. The more similar the molecules in two different species are, the more closely related they are presumed to be. At first, this approach seemed to confirm Darwin's tree of life. But as scientists compared more and more molecules, they found that different molecules yield conflicting results. The branching-tree pattern inferred from one molecule often contradicts the pattern obtained from another."

What do evolutionists say?



Can't use gene swapping as ad hoc explanation because there are problems even among higher organisms where such gene-swapping does not take place. As the article explains:

Again looking higher up the tree, a recent study published in Science tried to construct a phylogeny of animal relationships but concluded that “[d]espite the amount of data and breadth of taxa analyzed, relationships among most [animal] phyla remained unresolved.”

Evolutionary bioinformatics specialist W. Ford Doolittle explains, “Molecular phylogenists will have failed to find the ‘true tree,’ not because their methods are inadequate or because they have chosen the wrong genes, but because the history of life cannot properly be represented as a tree.”W. Ford Doolittle, "Phylogenetic Classification and the Universal Tree," Science, Vol. 284:2124-2128 (June 25, 1999).

"[d]espite the amount of data and breadth of taxa analyzed, relationships among most [a nimal] phyla remained unresolved."

More sources:


Convergent Evolution on the DNA level

Evolutionists have found convergence on the DNA level which goes against their expectations because it is highly, highly, unlikely. This is found among whales and bats when it comes to echolocation. The ScienceDaily article reports that these similarities are not just phenotypic but extend down into the level of the gene sequences:










    Thus, the high unlikelihood of such convergent genetic evolution poses great problems for systematists who seek to reconstruct a tree of life because molecular systematic banks upon the assumption [or expectation] that genetic similarity is the result of common inheritance. In this case, however, common inheritance makes no sense:



    A review of this research in Current Biology stated:




So with all these foundational expectations or predictions of evolutionists contradicted with recent scientific findings, don't you think it's time for to adopt a new theory? Where does the buck stop? If all of this doesn't falsify evolution then what will? And I have a tons more scientific findings that contradicts evolution. Sadly, you won't find any of this information in your textbooks.

Around the Network
Lol. I'm just going to say that some of the things you've posted are actually used as evidence FOR evolution. I haven't seen anything that disproves evolution in your post. Just the details surrounding the intricacies of evolution and life have improved as more information becomes available.

Scoobes said:

Please elaborate.

This should be interesting.

I don't believe in people who don't believe. I asked for Chtulhu opinion but he's offline.

AstroMaSSi rules


Well that's a ridiculous claim. Here's a plethora of supporting evidence.

TL;DR? (like your post)

This will sum it up:

For every single argument I've ever heard against evolution, I've heard a hell of a lot more convincing counter-arguments or explanations. I'm not going to waste my time reading your bible of a post to see arguments that have been previously refuted a thousand times.

Around the Network


If you want to make, or are trying to make, a point keep the length of your post down. Don't write an essay like you have done here. Almost nobodywill  feel like reading something of that length.

Also, are you a gamer or just a spammer? You have no games on your profile and all your threads are about religion. If you're on a campaign to convert people you'll probably find you efforts would be more productive in other places instead of a video game forum.

That has to be the longest post ever made on vgchartz....even longer than Carl's long cat picture.

didnt bother to read your post, its incredibly long.

Being in 3rd place never felt so good

Around the Network

Congratulations on taking a series of quotes completely out of context to twist the authors meanings.


Edit: And I'm only referring to the first section because I'll be damned if I feel like reading a 5000 word essay that starts out so poorly.