Dedicated to summarizing the facts regarding origins
Image courtesy NASA
& Nature Photo Galleries












Evolution has been proved as a fact.


This statement is only partially true and very misleading.   Within species, descent with modification is an established fact that is observable.  "At the level of kingdoms, phyla, and classes, descent with modification from common ancestors is obviously not an observed fact.  To judge from the fossil and molecular evidence, it’s not even a well supported theory." [1]  


“There is no evidence that life developed, or even could have developed, by a purely natural process.”[2]





Advances in biology are continually confirming the traditional evolutionary theory.


Findings of comparative biology contradict the traditional evolutionary theory. [3]







Small adaptive changes within a class/species/subspecies such as fruit flies prove that all animals and plants evolved from lower forms.  


1. “The degree of change that can be experimentally induced in a wide variety of organisms, from bacteria to mammals, even under the most intensive selection pressures, is always limited by a distinct barrier beyond which further change is impossible…” [4]


2.  Normal variations in a kind are governed by strict Mendelian laws of inheritance.  Normal variations occur within the limits specified in the DNA for that kind.  No vertical evolutionary changes are made but horizontal changes only. [5]


3.  “(S)elective change is limited by the inherent variability in the gene pool.  After a number of generations the capacity for variation runs out.” [6]





Bacterial resistance to antibiotics proves evolution.


Mutations responsible for resistance:

1.  Were present in the bacterial population before the antibiotics were discovered.

2.  May decrease the organism’s vitality.

3.  Cause no change in species but only in a variety of the species that differs from normal in its trait of resistance to the antibiotics.

Change is horizontal within the species not vertical evolution. [7]  







Archeopteryx said to be the missing link between dinosaurs and birds.  Sited by Darwin as proof of his theory.  Had wings, feathers, claws on wings, long lizard-like tail, and teeth unlike modern birds. [8]


Too many differences between dinosaurs and Archaeopteryx for the latter to be descendant of the former including Archaeopteryx large braincase “for the increased motor control and sensory input that were required for flight,” its bird frame as distinct from the “lizard-like pelvis” of theropods, its robust wishbone required of strong fliers to protect “the bird‘s delicate internal air sacs,” and its “fully formed wings with fused clavicles” compared to “clavicle-free theropod forelimbs.” [9]


“…too many structural differences between Archaeopteryx and modern birds for the latter to be descendants of the former.” [10]  







Fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal evolution


This idea is based on evolutionary assumptions that require ancestors.  “The evidence must be evaluated independently of any assumption about the truth of the theory being tested.” [11]


1. The mode of reproduction of amphibians and reptiles are different with no satisfactory Darwinian explanation to how the change could occur. [12]

2.   “At a molecular level there is no trace of an evolutionary transition from fish > amphibian >reptile > mammal.” [13]






Piltdown Man as a missing link


Proved to be a fraud.  Constructed from a modern human skull perhaps thousands of years old and part of a more recent modern ape jaw modified to look like it went with the skull.[14]





The horse series has been used as a proof for evolution in textbooks, other media and museums.   Newer horse series attempts include multiple branching from the linear series and some kinds removed and/or combined.



Problems with the horse series include:

1.       Rib pairs vary from 18 to 15 to 19 and back to 18. [15] [16] 

2.       Lumbar vertebrae vary from 6 to 8 and back to 6. [17]

3.      Most horses lived (or actually were buried) at almost the same time according to the fossil record. [18]

4.      Three toed horses have been found with one toed horses. [19] [20]

5.       Differences between short (low) crowned teeth with rounded cusps and narrow roots to long (high) crowned with open roots involve intelligent design not micro or macroevolution.  “There is no evidence of change from one tooth structure to another.” [21]

6.      A study of the fossil record indicates instead of a progressive series that there are at least three groups/kinds of animals within the horse family Equidae. [22] [23]   

7.       “Many specimens placed in separate species are actually variations of the same species.” [24]  These variations can be attributed to a designed in ability to adapt to various environmental conditions and hybridization. [25]  

Size changes prove nothing as horses come in many sizes today. [26]  [27]   







Darwin’s 14 species of finches


Main difference is beak size that oscillates with climatic conditions. The species may not be true species as evidence suggests that the finches choose mates by beak morphology and song patterns. At least half of the finch species hybridize though infrequently and the hybrids do better than the parental species.  This merging of species is opposite of the branching required by neo-Darwinism. [28]





Kettlewell’s experiments on variants ofpeppered moths given as a classical story of natural selection in introductory biology textbooks. [29] 




Peppered moths were in two existing varieties of light- colored and dark-colored.   The light-colored variety was predominant but this started to change in the industrial revolution. 


Kettlewell theorized that the changes were the result of the lighter moths being more visible on tree trunks darkened by industrial pollution and were therefore more easily prey to birds.  To test this theory, Kettlewell made releases of peppered moths of both varieties that had been marked unto tree trunks and later recaptured as many as he could.  The percentages of each variety captured agreed with his theory.    His experiments were flawed as peppered moths in the wild do not normally rest on tree trunks but under small branches.   Also, Kettlewell’s releases were made in the daytime while the peppered moths fly at night.  Later, contradictory results from other areas of England and other parts of the world indicated other factors had to be the cause. [30]





Neanderthals are not human but an extinct side branch of the evolutionary tree.  This idea was promoted by the French paleontologist Marcellin Boule and believed by most people in the early twentieth century. [31]


This idea was based on the stooped posture of some of the Neanderthal fossils leading to the cave man idea. 1 Now, however, it is known that Neanderthals walked upright, were hunters, processed vegetables with grinding tools, made jewelry, and performed surgery.   From the first completed Neanderthal genome, it is known that they were fully human related to people living in Eurasia.  They also interbred with modern humans based on skeletal remains in Iberia that were part modern and part Neanderthal. [32]





Homology redefined by Darwin’s followers means structural similarity due to common ancestry.  Most used examples are vertebrate limbs. [33]


Redefined definition involves the logical fallacy of circular reasoning.  Homologous features can arise in different ways of development.   Also, there is a “lack of correspondence between genes and structures.” [34]





“Generally, the embryos of the most distinct species belonging to the same class are closely similar, but become, when fully developed, widely dissimilar.”  - Charles Darwin


Darwin was mislead by Haeckel’s faked drawings of embryos that falsely showed embryos at the earliest stages most similar.   Actually, embryos are not similar in appearance until after gastrulation, the fourth stage, and even then are easy to tell apart.  Then they diverge and become very dissimilar. [35]





Recapitulation: the idea that embryos in their development pass the adult forms of their ancestors beginning from the earliest to the latest. [36] 


There is no empirical evidence for this idea that comes from an evolutionary mindset.





[1]  Wells, Jonathan, Icons of Evolution Science or Myth? 1st ed. (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc.,2002), 57

[2]  Spetner, Lee M., “Not by Chance“: Comments by the Author,

[3]  Denton, Michael, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Maryland: Adler & Adler, Publishers, Inc., 1985), 291

[4]  Ibid., 91

[5] Scientific Creationism, Ed. by Morris, Henry. Arizona: Master Books, 1996, 51

[6] Johnson, Phillip E., Darwin on Trial  (Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 1993), 19

[7] Thompson, Bert. Bacterial Antibiotic Resistance--Proof of Evolution? Apologetics Press,

[8] Wells, 112

[9] Dao, Christine, South Korea Moves to Correct Textbook Errors, Institute of Creation Research, 2012, 

[10]Wells, 116

[11]Johnson, Phillip, Darwin on Trial (Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 1993), 75

[12] Ibid, 77

[13] Denton, 285

[14] Wells, 217

[15] Morris, J. 1994. What About the Horse Series? Acts & Facts. 23 (3), Institute of Creation Research, 2012,

[16] Hastie, Peter, What happened to the Horse? Answers in Genesis, 1995,

[17] Hastie

[18] Molen, Mats, The evolution of the horse, 

[19] Morris, J. 2008. The Mythical Horse Series. Acts & Facts. 37 (9): 13, Institute of Creation Research, 2012,

[20] Horse find defies evolution, Creation Ministries International,

[21] Molen

[22] Morris, J. 1994

[23] Molen

[24] Dao

[25] Morris, J. 2008

[26] Ibid.

[27] Modern Horses Disprove Evolution, Creation Revolution,

[28] Wells, Chapter 8

[29] Wells, Chapter 7

[30] Ibid.

[31] Wells, 216

[32] Thomas, B. 2011. Identifying Neandertal Man. Acts & Facts. 40 (3):18, Institute of Creation Research, 

[33] Wells, Chapter 4

[34] Ibid.

[35] Wells, Chapter 5

[36] Wells, 87

[37] A Guide to Fossil Mammals and Birds (London: British Museum (Natural History), 1898)


Copyright 2013, 2014   All rights reserved.
    Myths as used here are:  1. Tentative suppositions,  or theories that have been factually disproved and are long after still being promoted as supporting certain beliefs.   2.  False or misleading statements made in support of a theory.  3. Facts that are said to support a theory that in reality may equally or better support one or more  known opposing theories. 4. Supposed facts in support of a theory that are fraudulent.  
Evolutionary Myths
Home   Site Index
Origins Facts Check
NAPP Summary
Home   Site Index   Disclaimer