Nope.

Not in the sense generally used by Darwinists. See below for explanation.

In practice, the term Evolution refers to two different concepts (a) Micro*Evolution, and (b) Atheistic Macro*Evolution. Of these...

Micro*Evolution is a Fact.

Atheistic Macro*Evolution is NOT a Fact.

Rather, the evidence indicates that Atheistic Macro*Evolution is a pseudoscience and a collection of myths, which have not been experimentally proved.

Note: see below if needed for definitions of Micro*Evolution and Atheistic Macro*Evolution.

Absolutely not.

All of the alleged proofs for Atheistic Macro*Evolution that we have examined, have turned out to be invalid, or faked, or evidence for Micro*evolution (and not Atheistic Macro*Evolution).

No.

Yes.

William Provine (evo bio at Cornell Univ) calls Darwinism the greatest engine of atheism devised by man.

Richard Dawkins (zoologist at Oxford Univ) said "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist"

Nope.

Both evolutionists and creationists (even YEC) recognize that change happens over time. Children of creationists grow up to become adults, and the same with children of evolutionists. Children change over time to become adults. This does not mean that they are evolving into another species...

What is in question is whether Atheistic Macro*Evolution has indeed occured.

That life began on earth in the form of single-celled creatures which evolved into multicellular creatures which through millions of years evolved into higher life forms (including humans) without guidance or assistance from any Intelligent Designer (such as God).

Absolutely not.

Darwinian theory tells us how a certain amount of diversity in life forms can develop once we have various types of complex living organisms already in existence. If a small population of birds happens to migrate to an isolated island, for example, a combination of inbreeding, mutation, and natural selection may cause this isolated population to develop different characteristics from those possessed by the ancestral population on the mainland.

This is Microevolution.

When the theory is understood in this limited sense, Darwinian evolution is uncontroversial, and has no important philosophical or theological implications.

This answer is adapted from a lecture by Prof. Philip Johnson

Adaptation resulting in minor changes within a species (e.g., changes in beak size in Finches).

Adaption resulting in minor changes within closely related species.

Can include limited speciation.

Evolutionary biologists are not content merely to explain how variation occurs within limits (Microevolution), however.

They aspire to answer a much broader question (Macroevolution)-which is how complex organisms like birds, and flowers, and human beings came into existence in the first place.

This answer is adapted from a lecture by Prof. Philip Johnson

Origin of new body-plans (e.g., new phyla).

Origin of new functional complex organs.

Origin of new functional complex biochemical systems.

An Atheist-faith-based belief that the following occurred with NO intelligent design or guidance.

Origin of new body-plans (e.g., new phyla).

Origin of new functional complex organs.

Origin of new functional complex biochemical systems.

We refer to Atheistic Macro*Evolution as an atheist-faith-based belief, because none of these items (above) have been empirically demonstrated (or experimentally proved) to have arisen, or to be capable of having arisen, by atheistic evolutionary processes without intelligent design or guidance.

The list below captures items we commonly come across in biology textbooks (offered as alleged proof of Macro*evolution). Our intention is to keep expanding this list as more such alleged proofs are brought to our attention by our evolutionist friends.

1. Artificial Selection (selective breeding).
2. Antibiotic resistance in Bacteria.
3. Ability of a given species to change over the years.
4. Morphological similarities between creatures.
5. Genetic similarities between creatures.
6. Heritability of characteristics (across generations of a species).
7. The fact that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
8. The existence of random mutations.

We will examine each of these in turn in the FAQ below.

Nope.

We will examine each of the alleged proofs in turn in the FAQ below.

And we find that NONE of them prove Atheistic Macro*Evolution.

Nope.

Selective breeding of dogs creates other dogs. Selective breeding of pigeons creates other pigeons. Selective breeding of horses creates other horses.

These are examples of artificial adaptation (micro*evolution) not macro*evolution.

There is no experimental evidence showing that selective breeding of pigeons creates a horse. Or that selective breeding of dogs creates an elephant, or a cat or a mongoose or a snake, or a roach.

Yes.

When we breed dogs, we find that the dog species can be changed up to certain limits. Beyond these limits the dogs are not viable (they die off). The further we move away from the norm of dog-species, the weaker the resulting purebred dogs, the more susceptible to diseases and weakness which ultimately kill them off.

The same phenomenon is observed when breeding pigeons or horses.

This observation is the opposite of what we would expect if Darwinism were true.

If Darwinism were true, the natural expectation is that species should be able to easily change from one to another, and that each species should be infinitely plastic (changeable without any problems). But instead we observe the opposite.

Yes.

Nope.

A bacterium typically obtains antibiotic resistance from another bacterium (often through exchange of segments of DNA).

The bacterium is a bacterium before the DNA exchange; and the bacterium is a bacterium after the DNA exchange.

So, "acquisition of antibiotic resistance" is an example of micro*evolution in action, not macro*evolution in action.

Nope.

This is an example of micro*evolution in action, not macro*evolution.

Note: increased protein consumption has been correlated with increasing height of a given population. This does not prove macro*evolution.

Notice that in the case of the taller Asians, we have a taller version of the same species.

Darwin's theory however says we will get a new species not just a taller version of the same species. I.e., for Macro*evolution to be true, we need to obtain a new specices, nut just a taller version of the same species.

Nope.

(1) The fact that a car has similarites with an ox-cart does not prove that the car evolved **without intelligent design** from an ox-cart.

(2) Furthermore, if similarity proves common descent by atheistic processes, then (by symmetry), dis-similarity should prove absence of common descent by atheistic processes...

IOW, if three points of similarity prove common descent (by atheistic processes) then three points of dis-similarity should prove absence of common descent...

However this is not however how the Darwinian game is played...

Because, if we permitted this kind of reasoning, we can prove that no species descended (by atheistic processes) from any other species.

(3) Furthermore, if similarities prove common descent, then there should be no similarities between organisms that Darwinists claim do not share common ancestors. I.e., if two creatures are NOT related by common descent, then there should be no points of similarity between them (if Darwinian "logic" is correct). However in practice there are innumerable cases of creatures which share significant points of similarity, which are believed by evolutionists to NOT be related by common descent from a common ancestor.

These points above show that Atheistic Macro*Evolution is NOT proved by morphological similarities between creatures (despite protestations to the contrary by many evolutionists).

Nope.

Same kind of reasoning as above...

I.e., ...

(1) The fact that a car has similarites with an ox-cart does not prove that the car evolved **without intelligent design** from an ox-cart.

(2) Furthermore, if genetic similarity proves common descent by atheistic processes, then genetic dis-similarity shoud prove absence of common descent by atheistic processes...

IOW, if three points of genetic similarity prove common descent (by atheistic processes) then three points of genetic dis-similarity should prove absence of common descent...

However this is not however how the Darwinian game is played...

Because, if we permitted this kind of reasoning, we can prove that no species descended (by atheistic processes) from any other species.

(3) Furthermore, if genetic similarities prove common descent, then there should be no genetic similarities between organisms that Darwinists claim do not share common ancestors. I.e., if two creatures are NOT related by common descent, then there should be no points of similarity between them (if Darwinian "logic" is correct). However in practice there are many cases of creatures which share significant points of genetic similarity, which are believed by evolutionists to NOT be related by common descent from a common ancestor.

These points above show that Atheistic Macro*Evolution is NOT proved by genetic similarities between creatures (despite protestations to the contrary by many evolutionists).

Nope.

The fact that Johnny's nose looks like his dad's does not prove that Johnny is going to evolve into another species.

Nope.

The existence of a 4.5 billion year old earth does not prove that Atheistic Macro*Evolution is true.

Yes (to both questions).

Nope.

Thousands if not millions.

Yes.

Because the probability of obtaining one good needed mutation is very small. To get 100 such needed mutations, you have to multiply all of the small probabilities (of each mutation occurring) which results in such a low probability that any rational person would be justified in saying the occurrence of the needed 100 "good" mutations is impossible for all practical purposes.

This situation is even worse given the need for 1000's (or millions) of such good mutations. The probability of them occuring as and when needed is so infinitismally low as to be zero for all practical purposes.

They ask us to believe by faith that there was an extended series of such good mutations each of which made the creature slightly more fit... and natural selection selected each of these mutations until finally one day, voila, you have a functioning eye (or other functioning complex new organ).

Nope.

Nope.

Because we have to believe in such a series if we are to reject the concept of an intelligent designer who overcame these probabilistic limitations using his intelligence.

Yes.

Nope. Not in any experimentally rigorous way.

Not in any experimentally rigorous way.

Attempted explanations are largely exercises in hand-waving, without any verification with experimental rigour.

A single living cell is as complex as an entire major city (e.g., as complex as New York City).

Each living cell has (a) factories, (b) power plants, (c) transportation systems, (d) food processing plants, (e) packaging plants, (f) storage sheds, (g) workers, (h) supervisors, (i) copy-editors, (j) proof-readers, (h) truck drivers, (i) copy machines, (j) faxes, (k) computers, (l) vacuum cleaners, (m) janitors, (n) sewage treatment plants, (o) sewage systems, and (p) innumerable machines of every kind.

Nope.

Yes.

Yes.

He said "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Yes.

Because Darwin is basically arguing that if he can "imagine" a series of slight modifications (without any experimental demonstration of the viability of such intermediate organs) that is all it takes to validate his theory.

In other words, he has come with a new definition for science. If Darwin (or any of his followers) can ***imagine*** something that supports their theory, that means the theory has been validated.

Legitimate science does not function in this manner. Cults do.

In legitimate science, experimental evidence/proof is needed to validate a theory or a hypothesis.

Within Darwinism, such experimental evidence/proof is NOT needed to validate Darwinian theories or hypotheses. All it takes to "validate" (in Darwinist's minds) their conjectures, speculations and hypotheses is their ability to imagine that they happened.

In practice, this is exactly what we see today within the Darwinian fold... Lots of conjectures and speculations with no experimental demonstration or proof.

This methodology (accepted and practiced by Darwinists at large) makes Darwinism essentially unfalsifiable.

Because one of the hallmarks of a true science is that its hypotheses and theories should be Falsifiable.

We should be able to clearly demonstrate that the hypothesis or theory is False by running an experiment and comparing its results against the predictions of the hypotheis/theory. If our experimental results do not match theh theory's predictions that would indicate that the theory is False (i.e., the theory has been falsified).

If a theory can not be falsified, then the theory is not Science. Rather it is Pseudo-Science.

Based on the Criterion of Falsifiability, Darwinism is not legitimate science. Rather it is Pseudo-Science (i.e., atheist faith pretending to be science).

Yes. Prof Michael Behe.

After a good amount of research in this area, he wrote a book titled "Darwin's black box".

In that book, he lists and discusses a variety of biochemical machines and systems (within living organisms) that have irreducible complexity. I.e., it takes a certain minimum level of complexity for the machine to even begin to be functional.

Such machines (with irreducible complexity) can not be evolved by a step by step progression (with functioning intermediates).

This experimental observation indicates that Darwin's theory is false.

The responses have been basically irrational.

"Behe does not understand science." (IOW, Science = Atheism. And if Behe doesnt recognize this, Behe is a bad man and we shouldn't listen to him. :)

"Behe has a religious agenda" (IOW, Behe believes in God, and so that makes him automatically mentally incompetent and so we shouldnt listen to him. :)

"Behe suffers from a failure of the imagination." (IOW, Behe subscribes to the concept that experimental validation is a good way to do science. And because he does not use the Darwinian method of just imagining a series of intermediates and being content to accept that rather than looking for experimental validation, Behe is a bad man and we should not listen to him. :)

Atheist Evolutionary Zoologist Richard Dawkins (Oxford University) denounced Behe as cowardly for believing in God, but admitted that he could not answer Behe's argument. [ref: Talking about evolution with Richard Dawkins, PBS: Wattenberg, Oct 18, 2001]

Nope.

Yes.

Nope.

The response basically boils down to -- "I can imagine that there is such a series. Therefore irreducible complexity is invalid. Therefore we should still believe in Darwinism."

It is worthwhile to reiterate that...

There have been no experimental demonstrations (by Darwinians) that prove that Behe's irreducibly-complex-structures are not irreducibly complex.

All of the evidence indicates that the structures are indeed irreducibly complex. And this inference of irreducible complexity has not been falsified.

There have been no experimental demonstrations (by Darwinians) that prove that the incredibly complex machines in the living cell are not irreducibly complex.

All of the evidence indicates that these complex machines in the living cell are indeed irreducibly complex. And this inference of irreducible complexity has not been falsified.

Yes...

There are evolutionary biologists who admit that Darwinists have not experimentally proven the arising of complex organs by series of slight modifications with functioning intermediates... and that the irreducibly complex structures that Behe highlights have not been experimentally shown to be reducible.

Tom Cavalier-Smith (Evolutionary biologist, University of British Columbia) states, "For none of the cases mentioned by Behe is there yet a comprehensive and detailed explanation of the probable steps in the evolution of the observed complexity".

Robert Dorit (Molecular Biologist, Yale University) states, "In a narrow sense, Behe is correct when he argues that we do not yet fully understand the evoluiton of the flagellar motor or the blood clotting cascade."

Both Dorit and Cavalier-Smith believe that evolution is true (somehow).

Yes.

Unless Atheistic Macro*Evolution is basically an unfalsifiable (nondisprovable) pseudoscience.

Coming to think of it... the more I investigate Atheistic Macro*Evolution, the more I am led to infer (based on the evidence) that Atheistic Macro*Evolution is indeed a pseudoscience like Astrology (unfalsifiable; extremely vague predictions; retrofitting of the theory to explain away contrary evidence; retrofitting of the theory to make it look like it made certain predictions when it did not make those predictions prior to the discovery of the fact it was supposed to have predicted etc).

Extensive investigation of the theory indicates that the theory has the following features (that are characteristic of pseudoscience).

• unfalsifiable;
• extremely vague predictions;
• retrofitting of the theory to explain away contrary evidence;
• retrofitting of the theory to make it look like it made certain predictions when it did not make those predictions prior to the discovery of the fact it was supposed to have predicted etc.

Has there been any experimental observation of natural selection producing such an apparently irreducibly complex systems.

Nope.

Nope.

Apparently by Atheist Macro*Evolutionary Faith.

When you have such faith, who needs experimental observation? Who needs experimental proof? Who needs experimental evidence?

Only those stupid heretics who have the temerity to question Atheistic Macro*Evolution. Obviously they must be "stupid, insane, or wicked" (to paraphrase Richard Dawkins).

Nope.

Yep.

Yep.

About 30 different times.

Yep.

Yep.

Because if you have enough Atheist Macro*Evolutionary Faith, it becomes possible to believe that anything is possible to Atheistic Macro*Evolutionary processes (essentially natural selection + random chance).

Even without any experimental proof or validation.

He made a conjecture (that a patch of cells that were sensitive to light gradually evolved into an eye). However neither he nor any of his followers have ever empirically demonstrated that this happened, or experimentally demonstrated that this can happen.

Nope.

Yep.

Nope.

It is an article of faith of Atheistic Macro*Evolution that they can.

However, there is no empirical proof or experimental demonstration that they have or that they can.

The truth of the matter is that Evolutionists dont really know.

This doesnt stop them from coming up with conjectures and speculations. However none of the conjectures and speculations have been (are appear likely ever to be) empirically proved or experimentally demonstrated.

It is an article of faith of Atheistic Macro*Evolution that they can.

However, there is no empirical proof or experimental demonstration that they have or that they can.

Dr. David Berlinksi (a scholar who is skeptical of Atheistic Macro*Evolution; not a Christian; not a Bible-thumper) tracked down the scientists who supposedly created this computer model and found that the model does not exist.

Here is Berlinski's summary (from The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science, Tom Bethell):

"This notion that there is somewhere a computer model of the evolutionary development of the eye is an urban myth. Such a model does not exist. There is no such model anywhere in any laboratory. No one has the faintest idea how to make one. The whole story was fabricated out of thin air by Richard Dawkins. The senior author of the study on which Dawkins based his claim, Dan E. Nilsson, has explicitly rejected the idea that his laboratory has ever produced a computer simulation of hte eye's development."

I am not saying that Dawkins is intentionally lying... it is possible that since he so badly wants to believe in Atheistic Macro*Evolution (he is an atheist and so needs Atheistic Macro*Evolution to be true in order to support his atheism), after a while the line between truth (painstakingly researched) and falsehood (based on flights of imagination) might possibly become a bit blurred...

This line is easily blurred in the case of Atheistic Macro*Evolutionary Theory (AMET) because the vast bulk of AMET is based upon speculative flights of the imagination rather than upon rigorous empirical (experimental) demonstrations and proofs.

This means that in such evolutionist's eyes, scientists such as Behe should suspend their scientific incredulity (requirement for empirical proof or experimental demonstration) and should become personally credulous (willing to believe anything).

Such personal credulity will help scientists such as Behe to then take Darwinian conjectures and speculations to be fact...

That is a bit much to ask (for any rational intelligent person who is really interested in Truth) -- particularly given that Darwinists are so vocal that "Evolution is a Fact" (which it patently is NOT, as we see in this FAQ).

Nope.

Nope.

Some Darwinists state that a few of the 200 parts of the bacterial motor have other uses in the cell.

Nope.

Apparently for lack of better evidence.

The evidence they offer does not prove that the bacterial motor is reducibly-simple.

It is an article of faith of Atheistic Macro*Evolution that they can.

However, there is no empirical proof or experimental demonstration that they have or that they can.

Zero, for all practical purposes.

For math buffs, the actual number is 10^-40,000 (which is zero for all practical purposes).

That a "superintellect has monkeyed with physcis, as well as with chemistry and biology and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature."

Nope.

Yep (based on the testability criterion).

It is an Atheistic Religious faith.

In practice, most of the time, yes.

I.e., the fitness is not independently measured for later correlation with Survival rates.

Rather, survival is assumed to be due to fitness, and fitness coefficients are calculated based on survival rates.

In other words... why did the organism survive? Because it was fit.

How do you know it was fit? Because it survived.

This is circular irrationality, not science.

To break this circularity, it is necessary for the Darwinist to independently measure the fitness, and independently measure the survival rates, and then match the two.

In most cases, this is not done.

Nope.

His most vocal opponents were Paleontologists (scientists who study fossils).

Very simply, because the fossil evidence contradicts Darwin's theory.

Gradual change, with one species gradually merging into another.

(a) Large numbers of species suddenly appearing out of nowhere. (b) The species stays largely unchanged for millions of years. (c) The species then suddenly disappers. (d) New species suddenly appear out of nowhere.

Nope.

Yep.

Yep...

Unless of course, Macro*Evolutionary Darwinism is an untestable, unfalsifiable pseudo-science like Astrology.

Which, coming to think of it, does appear to be the case.

Nope.

By invoking a variety of untestable, unfalsifiable hypotheses, speculations and conjectures (incomplete fossil record; fast speciation in an isolated sub-population that happened somewhere else).

Yes.

Dr. David Raup (Geologist, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago; believes in evolution) stated:

"The evidence we find in the geologicl record is not nearly as compatible with darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be. Darwin was completely aware of this. He was embarassed by the fossil record because it didnt look the way he predicted it would and, as a result, he devoted a long section of his Origin of Species to an attempt to explain and rationalize the differences. There were several problems, but the principal one was that the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution."

And...

"we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasnt changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information -- what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic."

There should be a near-infinite number of varieties of transitional creatures with small minor changes (mutations) that lead gradually to a new structure or organ such as a feather, a wing or a lung.

We do not see anything like this in the fossil record.

That there should be "interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps."

Nope.

Yes...

Unless of course, Macro*Evolutionary Darwinism is a pseudo-science (like Astrology) that is incapable of falsification...

Which (as mentioned above) does appear to be the case.

(a) Large numbers of species suddenly appearing out of nowhere. (b) The species stays largely unchanged for millions of years. (c) The species then suddenly disappers. (d) New species suddenly appear out of nowhere.

Yes.

Yes...

Unless of course, Macro*Evolutionary Darwinism is a pseudo-science (like Astrology) that is incapable of falsification...

Which (as mentioned above) does appear to be the case.

Neo-Darwinism tells us that evolutionary changes are by random-mutations, and >99.99 % of mutations are detrimental (bad), and < 0.01 % are beneficial (good). And that it would take thousands of beneficial mutations to create a new organ. And that random-chance changes/ evolution is a continuous on-going process.

If these are true, what would we expect in terms of incipient and evolving-organs in animals that are alive today?

We would expect to see a near-infinite variety of incipient organs at various stages of evolution/ development in the adults of all of the species we come across.

Including random-genetic-drift-induced evolution -- There would be a near-infinite variety of organs that have no function (that might be useful later). There would be a near-infinity variety of incipient organ-like structures which are in the process of evolving (essentially by random-chance) into something that might be useful later. These would all be structures that are NOT detrimental to the survival of the creature, but neither are they beneficial to the survival of the creature.

Considering just "natural-selection + random-chance-mutation" induced evolution, there would be a near-infinite variety of organs that have partial function (but not complete function) which are providing the creature a slight natural-selection edge on survival.

We do not see either of these features in the species that are alive today.

Yep.

Nope.

Nope.

Yep...

Unless of course, Macro*Evolutionary neo-Darwinism is a pseudo-science (like Astrology) that is incapable of falsification...

Which, coming to think of it, does appear to be the case.

Thousands, possibly millions.

Nope.

Nope.

Nope.

He stated that the extreme rarity of transitional fossils is the "trade secret of paleontology".

Nope.

Stephen J. Gould stated: "The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of hte brances; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."

He states: "very few intermediates between groups are known from the fossil record."

Nope.

Nope.

Archaeopteryx is now viewed as a dead end, not as a transitional species to modern birds.

Nope.

Archaeopteryx appears to have come out of nowhere, and went nowhere.

Nope.

The horse series is an example of micro*evolution, not an example of macro*evolution.

Many (possibly most) biology text-books present a sequence of very small horses (about dog sized) evolve up into modern large horses.

However, paleontologist & evolutionist, Niles Eldredge, states that the sequence is entirely speculative, even though it is commonly presented as literal truth in biology textbooks.

Apparently in recognition of this fact, the American Museum of Natural History has had to rearrange its "liner horse sequence" exhibit, to try to reduce miscommunicating to the public.

About 500 million years ago, an incredible number of new animals and plants appear suddenly on the scene. This biological explosion is called the Cambrian Explosion. About 80 new phyla (of animals/ creatures) appear suddenly on the scene.

34-35 of today's 35 currently living phyla appear suddenly at the Cambrian explosion.

Each phylum has a completely different body plan / body organization. Many (may be all) phyla have novel organs, organ systems and novel proteins.

Yes. Evolutionist & zoologist Richard Dawkins states "It was as though they were just planted there, without evolutionary history."

We would expect to see "vast piles of strata rich in fossils" that gradually lead up to the fossils in the Cambrian explosion.

Nope.

Nope.

Nope.

Nope.

Nope.

Yes.

Yes.

Unless (neo)Darwinism is a vague pseudo-science (like Astrology) that makes no specific testable falsifiable predictions...

Which, coming to to think of it, does appear to be the case.

Yes.

When we deal with fossils that are half a billion years old, it is not possible to resolve a time period to less than ~5-10 million years. So if the Cambrian explosion took place in an instant, we would only be able to identify that instant as being within a 5-10 million year period.

So, yes, based on the fossil evidence, the Cambrian explosion could indeed have happened instantaneously.

Anywhere from 1 second to 10 million years. I.e., the maximum possible length is 10 million years. The minimum duration of the explosion is an instant of time (e.g., 1 second or less).

Nope.

Because the ~80 phyla that show up in the Cambrian explosion each appear suddenly in the fossil record, without a gradual sequence of fossils that lead up to them.

The pattern of the fossils / evidence contradict the expectations/ predictions of neo-Darwinism.

Some evolutionists try to explain away the absence of preCambrian transitional fossils by stating that they were soft-bodied.

However, in 1984, paleontologists discovered very rich beds of Cambrian and pre-Cambrian fossils in China. Large number of pre-Cambrian soft-bodied creatures were incredibly well preserved as fossils. And all we see are a few varieties of worms and sponges. No transitional species leading up to the Cambrian explosion.

The Chinese fossil beds show that "the dramatic transformation of life from primeval single-cell organisms to the complex multicellular precursors of modern fauna was more sudden, swift and widespread than scientists had thought."

(John N. Wilford, "Spectacular Fossils Record Early Riot of Creation," New York Times, April 23, 1991)

As evolutionist Richard Dawkins states, the Cambrians fossils arise "as though they were just planted there."

Yep.

Nope.

Yep.

Yep.

Unless of course, neo-Darwinism is a vague pseudo-science like Astrology, which makes no clear testable predictions...

Which coming to think of it, does appear to be the case.

It had been viewed in the past that ... "Most of everything that was going to happen, all the ways of making invertebrate animals, had already happened by the mid-Cambrian."

But... "Now, it seems the new life forms were invented within the first few million years of the Cambrian." (Harvard professor of natural history, Andrew Knoll).

Nope.

Evolution is a collection of speculations (conjectures) regarding how species might have arisen. The speculations are contradicted by the fossil record.

Darwin's tree-of-life predicts that there should be a few primitive organisms which gradually branch out into many other organisms.

At the base of the tree we should have few simple organisms which fall within one phylum. After millions of years, the number of organisms should gradually increase, and branch into two phyla. And after more millions of years, those phyla should branch into 4 phyla, and after millions of years, those phyla should branch into 8 phyla etc.

So, with time, the pattern that Darwin's tree-of-life predicts is the following:

1 phylum + millions of years --> 2 phyla.
2 phyla + millions of years --> 4 phyla.
4 phyla + millions of years --> 8 phyla.
8 phyla + millions of years --> 16 phyla.
16 phyla + millions of years --> 32 phyla.
32 phyla + millions of years --> 64 phyla.
64 phyla + millions of years --> 80+ phyla.

In the figure below, "1" denotes a phylum. "..." denotes millions of years.

Graphical representation (of numbers of phyla expected if Darwinism were true):

Graphical representation with Numbers of phyla (expected if Darwinism were true):

Another Graphical representation (of the growth in Numbers of phyla expected if Darwinism were true):

Instead of the pattern above (predicted by Darwinism), we see the opposite.

At the base of the tree, we see an incredible explosion of phyla, with more than 80 phyla being represented. And with time, we see a decrease in the number of phyla (kind of like a clock running down).

Today only about 35 phyla remain out of the original 80 initial phyla (which appeared suddenly, almost as if they were created instantaneously) at the Cambrian explosion.

Graphical representation:

Another Graphical representation (of the Numbers of phyla):

Notice that this pattern is exactly the opposite of what is expected if Darwinism were true.

Darwinism predicts a V-shaped growth that is very narrow (1 phylum) at the bottom and has the greatest number of phyla (e.g., 80) at the top.

What we observe in the fossil record is exactly the opposite. An incredible explosion of phyla at the Cambrian Explosion (about 530 million years ago) with 80 phyla appearing suddenly on the scene. And after this, with time the number of phyla have actually decreased with time (not increased as would be expected from Darwinism), until we are now down to about 35 phyla.

Yes.

Evolutionist Dr. Jun-Yuan Chen (Nanjing Institute of Geology & Paleontology) states regarding the fossil record, "The base is wide and gradually narrows... Darwinism is maybe only telling a part of the story for evolution."

Nope.

Rather than evidence for evolution (in the fossil record), we basically have "ingenious excuses"[1] from evolutionists for why the fossil record does not match the expectations of neo-Darwinism.

[1] to quote Prof. Phillip Johnson, law professor, University of California at Berkeley.

Nope.

Evolutionist Dr. Nicholas Holland (Scripps Institute of Oceanography) says about the the pre-Cambrian fossils, "You just hardly know what order to put the material in now. I mean, you might as well just present the phyla alphabetically. It's come to that."

Yep.

Evolutionist Prof. Stephen J. Gould has stated that transitional fossils "are generally lacking at the species level."

Yep.

Evolutionists Prof. Stephen J. Gould and Dr. Niles Eldredge recognized this fact and broadcasted it to the scientific community and also to lay-people, much to the chagrin of the traditional neo-Darwinists.

They came up with a theory called Punctuated Equilibrium.

The theory states that stasis (no change) is the norm for the vast majority of species, followed by sudden bursts in which new species arrive on the scene in a "geological instant".

Nope.

Yep.

Unless neo-Darwinism is a vague pseudo-science (like Astrology) which makes no specific testable falsifiable predictions.

Which coming to think of it, does appear to be the case.

Nope.

Nope.

Nope.

The jump from one species to the next (very different fossil species) was by saltation -- a sudden jump that is not marked by gradual change.

This was viewed as being of very low probability by other evolutionists. As a result, Prof Goldschmidt was mocked and derided by other evolutionists, almost to the destruction of his career.

Yes.

Punctuated Equilibrium Theory (PET) believes that the transitional species did not fossilize.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Because the transition occurred very rapidly and so there wasnt enough time (and numbers of transitional species/ creatures) for fossilization of the transitional species.

Yes.

Because species transitions are too slow for us to observe in real time (according to Punctuated Equilibrium Theory).

Yep.

Yep.

Yep.

Yep.

Yep.

Nope.

Yep.

Nope.

Yep.

More material is being added on a weekly basis.

Has Atheistic Macro*Evolution been proved to be a FACT ?

Absolutely not.

All of the alleged proofs for Atheistic Macro*Evolution that we have examined, have turned out to be invalid, or faked, or evidence for Micro*evolution (and not Atheistic Macro*Evolution).