Top 10 Myths About Evolution – with Downloadable PDF

If you have been looking for a simple, easy to follow quick guide to evolution… we’ve got it. Our friends at the Skeptics Society gave us permission to reprint this.


Below is the text. Learn it. Share it. Enjoy it… it’s science. It’s true. There isn’t a “debate” anymore over this stuff so stop letting creationists say otherwise.

Original Text:

1 If Humans Came From Apes, Why Aren’t Apes Evolving Into Humans?

Humans, apes, and monkeys are only distant evolutionary “cousins.” We come not from apes but from a common ancestor that was neither ape nor human that lived millions of years in the past. In fact, during the last seven million years many human-like species have evolved; some examples include Homo habilis, Homo erectus, and Homo neanderthalensis. All of these went extinct at different times, leaving just us to share the planet with a handful of other primates.

2 There Are Too Many Gaps in the Fossil Record for Evolution to Be True

In fact, there are lots of intermediate fossils. Archaeopteryx, for example, is one of the earliest known fossil birds with a reptilian skeleton and feathers. There is now evidence that some dinosaurs had hair and feathers. Therapsids are the intermediates between reptiles and mammals, Tiktaalik is an extinct lobe-finned fish intermediate to amphibians, there are now at least six intermediate fossil stages in the evolution of whales, and in human evolution there are at least a dozen intermediate fossil stages since hominids branched off from the great apes six million years ago. Considering the exceptionally low probability that a dead plant or animal will fossilize it is remarkable we have as many fossils as we do. First the dead animal has to escape the jaws of scavengers. Then is has to be buried under the rare circumstances that will cause it to fossilize instead of decay. Then geological forces have to somehow bring the fossil back to the surface to be discovered millions of years later by the handful of paleontologists looking for them

3 If Evolution Happened Gradually Over Millions of Years Why Doesn’t the Fossil Record Show Gradual Change?

Sudden changes in the fossil record are not missing evidence of gradualism; they are extant evidence of punctuation. Species are stable over long periods of time and so they leave plenty of fossils in the strata while in their stable state. The change from one species to another, however, happens relatively quickly (on a geological time scale) in a process called punctuated equilibrium. One species can give rise to a new species when a small “founder” group breaks away and becomes isolated from the ancestral group. This new founder group, as long as it remains small and detached, may experience relatively rapid change (large populations are genetically stable). The speciational change happens so rapidly that few fossils are left to record it. But once changed into a new species, the individuals will retain their phenotype for a long time, leaving behind many well-preserved fossils. Millions of years later this process results in a fossil record that records mostly stability. The punctuation is there in between the equilibrium.

4 No One Has Ever Seen Evolution Happen

Evolution is a historical science confirmed by the fact that so many independent lines of evidence converge to this single conclusion. Independent sets of data from geology, paleontology, botany, zoology, biogeography, comparative anatomy and physiology, genetics, molecular biology, developmental biology, embryology, population genetics, genome sequencing, and many other sciences each point to the conclusion that life evolved. Creationists demand “just one fossil transitional form” that shows evolution. But evolution is not proved through a single fossil. It is proved through a convergence of fossils, along with a convergence of genetic comparisons between species, and a convergence of anatomical and physiological comparisons between species, and many other lines of inquiry. (In fact we can see evolution happen—especially among organisms with short reproductive cycles that are subject to extreme environmental pressures. Knowledge of the evolution of viruses and bacteria is vital to medical science.)

5 Science Claims That Evolution Happens by Random Chance

Natural selection is not “random” nor does it operate by “chance.” Natural selection preserves the gains and eradicates the mistakes. To illustrate this, imagine a monkey at a typewriter. In order for the monkey to type the first 13 letters of Hamlet’s soliloquy by chance, it would take 26 (to the 13th power) number of trials for success. This is 16 times as great as the total number of seconds that have elapsed in the lifetime of the solar system. But if each correct letter is preserved and each incorrect letter eradicated, the phrase “tobeornottobe” can be “selected for” in only 335 trials, or just seconds in a computer program. Richard Dawkins defines evolution as “random mutation plus nonrandom cumulative selection.” It is the cumulative selection that drives evolution. The eye evolved from a single, light sensitive spot in a cell into the complex eye of today not by chance, but through thousands of intermediate steps, each preserved because they made a better eye. any of these steps still exist in nature in simpler organisms.

6 Only an Intelligent Designer Could Have Made Something as Complex as an Eye

The anatomy of the human eye shows that it is anything but “intelligently designed.” It is built upside down and backwards, with photons of light having to travel through the cornea, lens, aqueous fluid, blood vessels, ganglion cells, amacrine cells, horizontal cells, and bipolar cells, before reaching the light sensitive rods and cones that convert the light signal into neural impulses, which are then sent to the visual cortex at the back of the brain for processing into meaningful patterns. For optimal vision, why would an intelligent designer have built an eye upside down and backwards? This “design” only makes sense if natural selection built eyes from available materials, and in the particular configuration of the ancestral organism’s pre-existing organic structures. The eye shows the pathways of evolutionary history, not intelligent design.

7 Evolution is Only A Theory

All branches of science are based on theories, which are grounded in testable hypothesis and explain a large and diverse body of facts about the world. A theory is considered robust if it consistently predicts new phenomena that are subsequently observed. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are explanatory ideas about those data. Constructs and other non-testable statements are not a part of science. The theory of evolution meets all the criteria of good science, as determined by Judge William Overton in the Arkansas creationism trial:
• It is guided by natural law.
• It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law.
• It is testable against the empirical world.
• Its conclusions are tentative.
• It is testable and falsifiable.
If you can find fossil mammals in the same geological strata as trilobites then evolution would be falsified. No one has ever found such contradictory data.

8 Evidence for Human Evolution Has Turned Out to Be Fake, Frauds, or Fanciful

Eager to discredit evolution, creationists ignore hominid fossil discoveries and cherry pick examples of hoaxes and mistakes in the belief that mistakes in science are a sign of weakness. This is a gross misunderstanding of the nature of science, which constantly advances by using both its mistakes and the successes. Its ability to build cumulatively on the past is how science progresses. The self-correcting feature of the scientific method is one of its most powerful assets. Hoaxes like Piltdown Man, and honest mistakes like Nebraska Man, Calaveras Man, and Hespero-pithecus, are, in time, corrected. In fact, it wasn’t creationists who exposed these errors, it was scientists who did so. Creationists simply read about the scientific exposé of these errors, and then duplicitously claimed them as their own.

9 The Second Law of Thermodynamics Proves That Evolution is Impossible

The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to closed, isolated systems. Since the Earth receives a constant input of energy from the sun—it is an open-dissipative system—entropy may decrease and order increase (though the sun itself is running down in the process). Thus, the Earth is not strictly a closed system and life may evolve without violating natural law. As long as the sun is burning, life may continue thriving and evolving, just like automobiles may be prevented from rusting, burgers can be heated in ovens, and all manner of things in apparent violation of Second Law entropy may continue. But as soon as the sun burns out, entropy will take its course and life on Earth will cease.

10 Evolution Can’t Account For Morality

As a social primate species we evolved a deep sense of right and wrong in order to accentuate and reward reciprocity and cooperation, and to attenuate and punish excessive selfishness and free riding. As well, evolution created the moral emotions that tell us that lying, adultery, and stealing are wrong because they destroy trust in human relationships that depend on truth-telling, fidelity, and respect for property. It would not be possible for a social primate species to survive without some moral sense. On the constitution of human nature is built the constitutions of human societies.

  • Viraldi
  • Pingback: Tweets that mention Top 10 Myths About Evolution – with Downloadable PDF | Atheism Resource --

  • Locutus

    I don't understand how a phenomenon that is not directly observable due to the timescale involved can be called testable and falsifiable. As I understand it, micro-evolution has been observed, but how can one verify evolution from one species to another when it takes millions of years to unfold? What am I missing?

    • Ben

      Because species don't suddenly jump from one species to another. The parent always looks nearly identical to its child, and also to its own parents. But minute changes do occur between each generation. Over a million years, those changes become staggering. The reason we have different species names is becuase its convenient to classify each one as seperate from the others, but if we could have watched the great apes slowly evolve into an upright walking man, no doubt, we would not suddenly think, "Wow its a new species." We would think, "Wow, that (insert ape name) is starting to walk." We only give them different names as a convenience to seperate the small changes.

    • salahhe

      You are missing the fossil record.

  • theMADman24

    Locutus you are missing the fact that if, taking the popular example, rabbit bones were found in the Pre-Cambrian geological strata that would prove the current understanding of evolution wrong. Every fossil ever found has fit the appropriate time scale and if, for example, mammal bones were found long before they were thought to develop that would at the very least punch huge holes in the current understanding.

    Additionally if anything was actually "irreducibly complex" that would prove evolution wrong.

  • Robbie


    Check out these great videos for Speciation. Many other links – look up the ones on top…

    In short = Microevolution X enormous time = marcro evolution/speciation.

    DNA evidence suggests that all higher "kinds" of animals share a common ancestor with the "lower" kinds and all eventually share it with sponges and some "proto bacteria" "kind"

    Whales speciation -…

    Examples of Evolution occurring "NOW" – Read by Richard Dawkins from his book "The Greatest Show on Earth"

    'Why Evolution Is True' by Jerry Coyne

  • Larian LeQuella

    Great page. I have had a page up at for a while where I list the same type of arguments. I also have several sub menu items that expand on this. As a matter of fact, I specifically address the micro vs. macro evolution nonsense.

  • Pablo

    "The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to closed, isolated systems."

    Actually, the Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to every system, closed, isolated, adiabatic, or open. For example, the Kelvin statement of the Second Law, "It is not possible to have a process in which the sole result is the addition of heat and its complete conversion to work," says nothing about open or closed systems, and applies equally to both. Even the Clausius statement, "The entropy of the universe tends to increase" only refers to the total universe, and does not say anything about systems within the universe (curiously, the Clausius expression actually indicates that the increasing entropy of the universe is only true so long as the universe is increasing in volume – if the universe were decreasing in volume, the Clausius inequality says that the entropy of the universe should decrease)

    Now, the CONSEQUENCES of the Second Law depend on the type of system, and yes, you can show that, starting with the Kelvin statement, a spontaneous process in a closed system must occur with an increase in entropy. However, by the same approach, you can show that the Second Law requires that a spontaneous process in an open system is accompanied by a drop in free energy, irrespective of the entropy. It is just as much required by the 2nd Law as is the increase in entropy for a closed system.

    Whereas most creationists are too ignorant of thermodynamics to realize your mistake, I would say if I were a creationist, I wouldn't take your attempt to correct this myth very seriously. Granted, if I were a creationist, I would know better than to think that the 2nd prevents evolution in the first place.

    Remember, that entropy increases for closed systems is a _consequence_ of the second law. It is not the second law itself, which is far more reaching than just into closed systems.

  • Toby

    @ Adam: Thank you very much indeed for this quite interesting and well-written list. I am sure it will come in handy whenever discussing evolution with a creationist. There is just one tiny little thing that might be misunderstood: You say that "Humans, apes, and monkeys are only distant evolutionary 'cousins.'" This seems to assume that humans and apes are two different things, which is a bit like saying that a Volvo and a car are two different things. We simply do not come from (modern) apes because we ARE apes. African apes to be exact. (I concede that this point may be difficult for a creationist to swallow, though.) Also, on an evolutionary time scale, our relation to the other modern apes is not quite as distant as you seem to imply, given the fact that we are more closely related to chimpanzees than chimpanzees are related to orang utans or even gorillas. I am sure these facts aren't new to you, I just don't see them reflected in your text and I think they are real eye-openers. Here is Richard Dawkins answering the question:

    @ Morrison: You forget that evolution does not even TRY to explain the origin of life. Evolution explains the diversity of life. It is the process by which millions of different species have come into being once there was a single entity capable of reproducing itself. Where that first replicator came from is a whole different question (abiogenesis). Yes, Darwin hazarded a guess that was probably wrong, and the question has not yet been resolved ( However, that does not make evolution untrue or even unlikely, as evolution answers a different question. It you absolutely need to, feel free to assume that your god (Jahwe, Shiva, the FSM, Spiderman)created the first replicator or that he/she helped evolution along (like the roman catholics do). It is an unnecessary assumption but it has not yet been proven 100% wrong (for ANY god). Evolution, however, is a FACT.

    • http://dd Hopelless

      chemical evolution!

  • Robbie

    Just started reading "Rare Earth" by Peter Ward. Great read! So many variables in astro biology. One thing that the authors stick to is that live development and emergence including pre-evolutionary abiogenesis are all predicated on physical laws governing formation of galaxes, stars, age, size, brightness, era of the star, if it's 1st, 2nd or nova generation, etc. etc. etc.

    Absolutely mind boggling book. I am curious is they'll touch upon thermodynamics. So far, the first 20-30 pages they don't deal with creationism at all – pure science.

  • Johan

    //1 If Humans Came From Apes, Why Aren’t Apes Evolving Into Humans?//

    I agree, this is a stupid question.

    //2 There Are Too Many Gaps in the Fossil Record for Evolution to Be True//

    a) Fossils cannot prove the Darwinian mechanism, fossils at best could add weight to the idea of common ancestry, but this is not the equivalent of proving that the Darwinian mechanism was responsible for the change.

    b) Yet fossils tend to be missing, where common ancestry demands it most, ie cambrian, we know of virtually know fossils other than simple bacteria prior to the phyla that first appeared in the Cambrian.

    //Sudden changes in the fossil record are not missing evidence of gradualism; they are extant evidence of punctuation.//

    One cannot say something like this, while you want to maintain that evolution makes testable predictions or that evolution leads to fruitful expectations. The evolutionist has limited himself to blind material processes, and this is why Darwin knew gradualism was so important. If the evolutionist wants to insist that we are here due to blind material processes, no one will believe him if he had to say all major animal phyla suddenly appeared over night geologically speaking "because evolution works in jumps"

    //Natural selection is not “random” nor does it operate by “chance.” Natural selection preserves the gains and eradicates the mistakes//

    Natural selection doesn't produce anything, that is still the job of mutations, and these are random, natural selection cannot guide mutations, it can do nothing until blind mutations have stumbled upon the dna sequences that happen to lead to fitness. Natural selection cannot help make the job of random mutations any easier. The example of the type writers is misleading because you know prior to what you need is the first 13 letters of Hamlet. This is not something natural selection knows in advance, it could only preserver these letters if all the letters happen to form words on their own prior to making up the first letters of hamlet.

    //The anatomy of the human eye shows that it is anything but “intelligently designed.” It is built upside down and backwards//

    This is a darwin-of-the-gaps argument, the idea that the human eye is "wired backwards" is due a lack of knowledge. The nerves could not go behind the eye, because the choroid occupies that space. This provides the rich blood supply needed for the very metabolically active retinal pigment epithelium (RPE). This is necessary to regenerate the photoreceptors, and to absorb excess heat from the light. So the nerves must go in front rather than behind.

    “The idea that the eye is wired backward comes from a lack of knowledge of eye function and anatomy.”–Dr George Marshall

    The latest research shows that the inverted eye is actually optimal design because the light detecting photoreceptor cells are not covered by ordinary layers of cells. These cells have many properties that contribute to our surprisingly good vision. These cells called "Müller cells" have fiberoptic properties, they guide the light to the photoreceptor cells. As this paper's abstract says "Furthermore, their parallel array in the retina is reminiscent of fiberoptic plates used for low-distortion image transfer. Thus, Müller cells seem to mediate the image transfer through the vertebrate retina with minimal distortion and low loss. This finding elucidates a fundamental feature of the inverted retina as an optical system and ascribes a new function to glial cells"[1]


    1. Müller cells are living optical fibers in the vertebrate retina

  • Robbie

    Johan///Natural selection doesn’t produce anything, that is still the job of mutations, and these are random, natural selection cannot guide mutations, it can do nothing until blind mutations have stumbled upon the dna sequences that happen to lead to fitness. Natural selection cannot help make the job of random mutations any easier.


    If your ass is a pocket mouse (snicker's bar of the desert in Arizona) you better pray that natural selection doesn't select you for food by a sharp owl or snake.

    Your mutation as a mouse at that point are IRRELEVANT – it is NOW UP TO NATURAL SELECTION TO "guide" owl to catch you or you to escape.

    Epic Fail!

    • jfxa

      Robbie this is an example of an atheist confronting intelligent comments with anger, ignorant derision and fluff. Answer with real answers not ridiculous analogies.
      It is clear that Darwin expected more fossil evidence to confirm his theory. It is clear that he expected to find complex pathways to be simply reducible. It is clear that he expected the cell to be simple and easy to come about from chemical processes on its own.
      All of these have been shown to be just the opposite of what he expected. You either adjust his theory for a better one, but you can ignore the evidence the seems to contradict his theory.

  • Robbie

    @Johan///One cannot say something like this, while you want to maintain that evolution makes testable predictions or that evolution leads to fruitful expectations.

    Another epic fail…

    Tiktalik was predicted to be in rocks of certain age BEFORE it was found.

    Darwin Moth was predicted by Darwin – took what 50+ years to find it?

    Marsupials were predicted to be found in Antartica due to plate tektonics movement.


    Epic fail!

  • Robbie

    @Johan///Natural selection doesn’t produce anything, that is still the job of mutations, and these are random, natural selection cannot guide mutations, it can do nothing until blind mutations have stumbled upon the dna sequences that happen to lead to fitness. Natural selection cannot help make the job of random mutations any easier.

    Natural selection cannot produce anyting – IT'S UNCONSCIOUS. It cannot guide anything, it cannot help any jobs easier – THESE ARE ALL METAPHORS FOR non random "processes" that happen in nature and called NATURAL SELECTION. They happen however you label them – end of story.

    Any Biology Book or quick search on youtube will give you a whole bunch of videos on what natural selection is.

    Natural selection is BUT ONE process and random mutations and genetic drifts within population (not individual alone) are parts of the multi faceted theory (body of knowledge/processes that are dubbed evolution – gradualism, speciation, common ancestry, natural selection and non selective mechanisms of genetic nature.

  • Robbie

    @Johan///Fossils cannot prove the Darwinian mechanism, fossils at best could add weight to the idea of common ancestry, but this is not the equivalent of proving that the Darwinian mechanism was responsible for the change.

    What if our current DNA would for some freakish reason would not be read – let's theoretize that? – SO GENETIC COMPONENT COULD NOT BE READ AT ALL – just let's speculate.

    What is left then?

    * fossils> common ancenstry – by the way if you know anything about classification of animals the current clasification was the product of creationist/religous scientists :o )

    * natural selection by a variety of processes

    - bio geogrphical diveristy would still be present – read on oceanic and continental islands and LAWS of live for them

    - plate tektonics would still exist – it would show gradualism and common ancestry per current animal clacificaions originated by the reiogious scientists

    - speciation can be still inferred from it as well as common ancestry

    - gradualism can be shown still

    - sexual selection can be demonstrated the same way peacokcs with short feathers will sire fewer off springs

    - fruit flies that live in horizontal vs. vertical enviroment or fed different foods would not be breeding with each other

    - scientists would be able to recreate the same "visibly" similar species of flowers that did not exist 100-200 years ago and which will not interbreed in nature and in the lab.

    NOTHING WILL CHANGE if genetics is gone. There will be just one less mechanism for evolution to verify it.

    But again, genetics is a new science, so even before it EVOLUTION WAS A FACT IN SCIENTIFIC CIRCLES SHORTLY AFTER DARWIN.

    Another epic fail!

    You need to start asking yourself, Johan, WHAT CAN FALSIFY MY STATEMENTS? It's very simple. – THINK.

  • Robbie


    Please, provide explanations of this intelligent design

    - goose bumps in humans

    - wisdom teeth

    - appendix

    - hemorroids

    - useless wings for kiwis

    - laryngeal nerve of 15 feet in giraffs though it really needs to be about 2 feet long

    - stickle back fish vestiges

    - loss of eyes in similar species of fish in caves and salamanders

    - tails in humans (not tail bone, but tails)

    - wolf man (super hair)

    - hind legs in dolphins and whales that are expressed occasionally

  • Robbie


    Evolution of the eye

    Watch some of these videos and then come back and play in the sanbox with the other kids.

  • Robbie


    Eye Evolution – 5 parts documentary (45 min total)

    Once you understand the basics – STOP USING THE ARGUMENT YOU JUST LOST.

  • Robbie

    Prion proteins capable of evolution despite containing no DNA

    Scientists say specialized proteins that cause mad cow disease are lifeless but can still evolve.…

  • James Smith João Pessoa, Brazil

    Of course the religious reich tries to discredit anything that doesn’t agree with their ignorance and silly beliefs. Nor do they shy away from lies, distortions, and simplifications. Truth, logic, and rational thinking were discarded by them in order to promote their own brand of willful ignorance.

    • Antony

      So, wait, are you ignorant of the history of science and the church? It's my understanding that logic left the church (very recently I might add). During the Age of Enlightenment, schools of thought left the church (as this was one of the only places to get an education before then), and due to that seperation, it seems there was a large cultural push upon ideas like transendance and faith in the church to defend their necessity. It doesn't seem that the pervasive ignorance of the religious is at all willful, it's simply a cultural bend.
      Try not to take your anger elsewhere, you'll make atheists look bad. All we have is logic and reason, and if you blow your top off like this, you'll get nowhere.

      • rankey

        The only reason the church had the knowledge in the first place is because of a thousand years of war and pillaging. You had to go to the church to learn what they WANTED you to learn. Then when science started to disagree with the worldview of the church, logic was abandoned altogether.

        • Smmashing

          False Christianity was prophesied in the bible, and it has done exactly what the bible prophesied it would do turning many away from the bible. This is in a few places in the bible but I like this illustrative account from Jesus in Mathew 13:24-30. The correct interpretation of the bible and science ARE compatible. Im studying with Jehovahs witnesses and challenging everything they have non conflicting answers from the bible, any translation. I believe they have the correct interpretation of the bible. There’s a growing number of creationist in the science community so don’t be afraid, practice intellectual honesty and search some more. It sounds like your a some what philosophical thinker.

  • Phil E. Drifter…

    "In 1858, Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace independently proposed a theory of biological evolution to explain the diversity of life on Earth. Since then the fossil record and DNA studies have added, and continue to add, overwhelming support for this view of life's history. Evolution today is one of the best documented and widely accepted principles of modern science. Life on Earth has changed dramatically through time. The theory of evolution proposes that through the process of natural selection and other natural events stretching over millions of generations, living things diversify, branching from one species into many. This means that all living things are related to one another through common ancestry with earlier, different life forms. In other words, if you follow your family tree far enough back in time, you will find a common ancestor not only with every other living thing, but with every thing that ever lived."

    There is no god. Get over it. EVOLVE.

    • Todd Parker

      So…what do you say to someone who accepts evolution and sees no conflict between it and a belief in God?

  • fjld

    Um… that bit about punctuated equilibrium isn’t quite right, nor is a bit of other things on the list.

    Not that I’m denying evolution… just the nit-picking of a evolutionary biology PhD student.

    • Charles_Willem

      Note the keyword “student”. You don’t know everything, nor have you supported your claims with evidence.

  • cholby doo

    they (our ancestors) said " we'll never walk erectus!" but we have!!!

  • rich

    The Rest of the Story,,,

    There are a group of folks like me, that are a living anthropology, we are from all over the globe and we met online. We all share the same story starting out at the bottom of the gene pool and now we do Einstein. We are Autism (yes, that dirty word) and figured out autism is the long hand version of human thought and it has never been in a text book before. We started out below 123 and the abcs and once we learned our never in print before thoghts the short cuts we came up are normal thoughts -just like you use. We fill in the gap evolution wise in terms of man's brain how it works and it came to pass as 'normal'.

    When and if all is said and told we could add the next 1000 chapters to psychology. Since normal people even the best of researchers unknowingly think in shortcuts all the time they don't have a clue they are missing the entire point of life. It is just as well, Man will not be impressed with his brain or how it really works.

    Rich Shull check out my blog Pre Rain Man Autism

  • Allegra Sloman

    Evolution is happening before our eyes with the Morrison Creek Lamprey, a rare but rapidly evolving lamprey species on Vancouver Island in British Columbia Canada.

  • Pingback: Diez mitos sobre la evolución - Raciocinio

  • Evolution will be a theory until it is observed and since it is a theory any other theory can come up even creationism. I am not a believer but really if you think about it where did the beginning of everything come from? One could say anything; yea evolution is pretty much it but something had to be there originally for for evolution to exist. Evolution does explain how we got here but doesn't explain what was there for us to evolve from.

    • Adam

      It has been observed… countless times. What hasn’t been observed is intelligent design. Gravity is still a “theory” by definition… do you doubt it too?

    • Dennis Watson

       Intelligent Design? (creationism) The human animal is prone to all kinds of diseases. We get pain for conditions we can do nothing about. What kind of f’d up design is that. The Designer must be a Moron.

    • Alexander

      If you actually think that evolutionary biology tries to explain the process of moving from inorganic molecules to living organisms, then forgive me in saying that you are plain ignorant. Evolutionary biology has never tried to explain this, that’s left up to abiogenesis. This whole idea that evolutionary biology has it’s pitfall in that it can’t explain the origin of LIFE (not to be confused with the origin of SPECIES) is drummed up by people either to ignorant, to proud, or to lazy to pick up an actually biology textbook (keep in mind that YouTube videos, blogs by ‘specialists’, or even the ranting of Richard Dawkins are not a sufficient substitute). So please, you’ll have to forgive me in discrediting your attempt at critical thinking, as it’s obvious you (along with most people who end up on these kinds of threads and forums) don’t know what you’re talking about.

      • Pádráig O’Gáirmléadháigh

        Do try to get basic English spelling and grammar right before calling people ignorant….Be aware of the difference in To, Too, and Two for a start…..”by people either to ignorant, to proud, or to lazy” should read “by people either too ignorant, too proud, or too lazy” Remember this phrase and it will help. The farmer went to market but was too late to sell his two cows”

        • sir_limpalot

          Spelling? Really?
          You don’t even know if english is his native language and the only thing you found to counter his claims was spelling and grammar?
          Kan vi ta resten av denne samtalen på norsk, så jeg kan kritisere deg for dårlig grammatikk og rettskriving?

          • Pádráig O’Gáirmléadháigh

            Whether in English or Norwegian, it still ill behoves anyone to call someone ignorant while at the same time displaying ignorant traits ones self of the language one is engaged in conversation through! If in fact English is not his first language, he displays an ability in the language that makes his mistake reprehensible.. As to your closing question, that will be fine as long as you are willing to conduct some of the convo in Irish?

            • sir_limpalot

              Not knowing the subtleties of the English language is an ignorant trait?
              Only people with perfect English is allowed to have strong opinions on other topics. Got it.
              Check your own spelling of oneself.

  • Antony

    @Allegra, not to mention the in vitro species of snail whose offspring developed a different system for reproducing, thus technically making it a new species.

    My former college roommate doesn't have much of a problem with any of these points; his only real stopping point is that although the sun produces energy for use on Earth, it's energy is low (at least, at any one point), and gradual. In order for many of the high-energy compounds in a living organism to be formed naturally, a good bit of energy would have to be introduced all at once, and in the right way so as not to destroy the sample, correct? I'm actually having a hard time with naturally arising single-celled organisms. Any answers?

    • rankey

      Global warming. It’s happening now, and it happened then. There’s your answer.

  • George Klein

    I would like to continue the title of #6: and as stupid to create only one heart, the “engine” of the body, but two kidneys, where one only working about 30% of its capacity would do the job, just to mention the most important flaws of this “intelligent” design (There are many others, too). I would barely give a passing mark to a faulty design like this.

  • Kevin

    #4 Dogs. There have been many a study. And its been proven.

  • Charles Henahan

    It’s funny you mention the last one. I read a book this summer called “Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved” by Frans de Waal, and it deals exactly with the evolution of morality in humans and in close primate relatives.

  • Charlotte

    I just figured it out: scientists naturally understand flux (evolution) because that is how science, itself works. Creationists/etc. do not accept flux. They want an unchanging universe. They wish for an unchanging universe or ultimate reality, despite their own experience.

  • Pingback: religion by whatdoiwant - Pearltrees

  • Pingback: Evolution/Anthropology by isbolick - Pearltrees

  • DickTater

    Perhaps a more easy to use explanation, for rapid evolution’s absence from the fossil record, would be to use the example of watching a film strip or DVR recorded show on 2X fast forward.

    There just are certain things, when played at certain speeds, which cannot be shown or appreciated. You see her pour the cup of coffee and the sugar bowl and her first sip…..but you will never be able to see the flowing liquid or slow stir of sugar.

  • paul

    It’s amazing that people deny evolution, while also acknowledging that different breeds of dogs exist, and that yes, we created them through dog-eugenics.

    • Adam Armstrong

      It sort of is, but it isn’t. Dogs are all the same species. As far as they are concerned the selective breeding of traits within that species is perfectly acceptable. It’s often termed “micro-evolution”. They split evolution into “micro-evolution”, which is changes within a “kind” or “species” and “macro-evolution”, which is the creation of new species. It is “macro-evolution” that creationists/intelligent design supporters claim is not true.

    • Smmashing

      A dog is still a dog, no change in specie babe

  • Hammer the Gods (@HammerTheGods)

    Top 10 Myths About Evolution – with Downloadable PDF

    1 If Humans Came From Apes, Why Aren’t Apes Evolving Into…

  • Pingback: billone | Pearltrees

  • Telea

    I agree with enthusiasm Paul, as i am a dog breeder relying upon recombinant genetics to achieve specific goals with my bullies.  Perhaps there is some small glimmer of hope for a tiny fraction of mindless humanity in the final analysis.

  • EB

    What you are seeing are signs of micro evolution not macro evolution. Macro evolution had been disproved over and over again

    • Charles_Willem

      By who? when? how? where? Do you plan to simply state things or do you intend to prove what you say?

      • DB

         As should the author of this post.

    • George Romaka

      There is no such thing as “micro evolution.” Not scientifically speaking. Evolution is the inherited change in characteristics over successive generations. Period. There is no “micro” or “macro” versions. That was a concept created by “intelligent design” proponents in order to give themselves a scientific sounding delineation to use to move the goalpost in debates. Expunge it from your mind and you’ll be better off.

  • EB

    You must read The Case Against Darwin by James Perloff

  • Pingback: 10 Myths About Evolution | Religious Criticism

  • mcbufff

    This is the stupidest thing i’ve read in my life, evolution is not scientific, this is main stream arguments, nothing here makes sense, evolution is shit. Anybody here debate me 

    • christian

      whenever you’re ready. you can find me at

    • sir_limpalot

      Science doesn’t agree with your belief and your conclusion is that science is shit?
      Why would anyone want to debate with you?

  • Alonzo Fyfe

    Your claim about evolution acconting for morality is just plain wrong.

    Ironically, this claim falls victim to a long-standing criticism of religious ethics. When told that what is good is loved by the gods, Socrates asked Euthyphro, “Is it good because it is loved by the gods? Or is it loved by the gods because it it is good?” If the former, then anything loved by the gods – including the torture of young children – would be good if only the gods loved it. If the latter, then we have not yet provided a sense of what it is for something to be good.

    Exactly the same criticsm applies to “What is good is that which is loved by the genes: (or what the genes has picked out as being good). If we evolved a sense of appropriateness for slavery, rape, or the slaughter of neighboring tribes, would that make it good to do so?

    What is particularly interesting is that these same scientists who ridicule believers for turning a blind eye to the Euthyphro problem also, and at the same time, turn a blind eye to the Euthyphro problem.
    For the record, I am an atheist. I hold that moral properties exist as natural facts that emerged through revolution, but an evolved “sense of right and wrong” that accurately identifies right and wrong is utter nonsense.

  • Alonzo Fyfe

    Evolution may be able to explain why humans are altruistic. However, I would like to see the evolutionary explanation for why altruism is good.

  • Adam Armstrong

    Point 1 is incorrect. We *are* evolved from apes, more to the point, we *are* apes.

    It is better to explain why it is possible for precursor and successor species to exist at the same time in different places than it is to erroneously argue based on terminology.

    We are also descended from fish, but fish exist. The exact species of fish we evolved from doesn’t still exist, but if it does, it wouldn’t affect the argument either way.

    Species adapt for 2 reasons, either they’re moving into a different environment, or their environment is changing. The first reason tends not to remove the precursor species, the second reason either causes it to move or destroys it altogether.

    • Smmashing

      Of course life has the ability to adapt in order to function more effectively in its environment. Why does this ability only suggest evolution to evolutionist? That is a very narrow scope of consideration. Why wouldn’t Intelligent Design be a considered explanation? Can one specie develop into another? No, there is no proof and you can believe this because it would be in the headlines; the debate would be over. A lot of windy sci-fi fiction can be written about why monkeys or anything else aren’t walking around still evolving, but questioning creation vs evolution from the standpoint of origin proposes a much more valid platform. Can DNA or RNA come about from a prebiotic soup? And develop and reproduce and and and…check those numbers out!

  • Justin Russell

    Evolution HAS been recorded on a minute level with the Atlantic tomcod. In a 40 year study of the Hudson River, the tomcod was seen dying out then making a return with a newly developed gland which enabled it to survive the toxicity of the river.

  • Samuel Adam Reese

    Wish there were some references. No offense, but I don’t like to just take people’s words for it. Otherwise, very thought-provoking and good information source.

  • Pingback: 10 Common myths about evolution | hitchens67 Atheism WOW!! Campaign

  • Smmashing

    There is more than one variety of ignorance and blind faith in this show case, quite obviously on both sides. We have creationist who don’t have the correct interpretation of their Bible and refuse to look science of any kind in the face and then we have the evolutionists who are afraid of both being grouped with creationist who are practicing blind faith while practicing it themselves and also the avoidance of being an out cast from the widely adolescent evolutionists in the science community. If anyone digs hard enough they will eventually come to the same conclusion as the growing number of established scientist and philosophers some of whom were former atheist and evolutionist who have come to the undeniable conclusion that creation is the only plausible explanation…scientifically speaking. Here’s a great place to launch some digging, Anthony Flew.

    • Mitch W.

      You know, a mind is a terrible thing to waste.