Challenges for Evolutionists

1.  Write a nullifiable hypothesis for any evolutionary scheme.  You are aware, of course, that science is based absolutely and exclusively on nullifiable hypotheses.  Any idea (hypothesis) put forward in science must be testable (and, therefore, by implication nullifiable), else it has no value.  Scientific methodology rests unconditionally on this premise.  We can actually only disprove ideas in science, never prove them, so written into any hypothesis or proposition must be a mechanism for its disproof.  If it survives extensive and exhaustive testing, even if only in a modified form, the hypothesis can then be upgraded into a Theory.

The problem you face with evolution is that everything happened in the past, and while we may be able to produce scenarios and do experiments to show what might have happened, we can never know what actually did happen, because there is no way of going back and checking.  So, explain why it is possible to write a nullifiable hypothesis for evolution, and then produce one.  Secondly explain why, in the face of the above, evolutionary ideas are incorrectly considered to be theories.

2.  Evolution gives us no answers about the origin of life.  The Law of Biogenesis observes that life only comes from life.  Louis Pasteur proved scientifically that life does not come from non-life, a fact that is the basis of the food-canning industry to this day.  Increasingly speculative and, it has to be said, absurd scenarios have been proposed for the conditions which produced the first living cell.  Please propose a scheme for biogenesis which is firstly in accordance with known and accepted physical and chemical laws, and secondly which doesn't impose a huge strain on credulity by incorporating endless wildly unlikely coincidences.

3.  Since natural selection, the supposed basis of evolution, can only select from existing characteristics and does not produce new genetic material, please explain how new genetic material is generated.  Remember that when Richard Dawkins was asked, in a video interview, whether he could point to any known change which produced new genetic material, he had to admit defeat.  There are no known changes in living things which increase the complexity of the genome.

4.  Mutations, said to be the source of new genetic material, are harmful to life and often lethal.  Deliberately induced mutations in over 3,000 consecutive generations of fruit flies have failed to produce a better fruit fly, or to increase its viability.  Some mutations induced in the lab may have certain advantages, but these have always been overshadowed by more serious and often fatal disadvantages.  Please explain in detail why, with this evidence staring us in the face, you still persist in assuming that mutations can be beneficial.

5.  As Charles Darwin admitted, there is no actual evidence of any species having developed into another species.  There are cases where it could be argued that this has happened, but we have no indisputable, concrete evidence for it.  We also have cases where species appear to merge, but, again, this does not lead to completely new species being produced.  That being so please explain why you continue to believe that this not only can happen but has done so in the past, and in a huge number of cases.

6.  It is generally true that acquired characteristics cannot be inherited.  We now know of some minor cases of this, but not enough to permit evolution as it is generally accepted.  For example, a one-armed man will not have one-armed children, as Lamarck's theory falsely assumed in order to account for evolution.  As this is the only other way in which evolution could happen, why isn't this believed instead of Darwinian evolution, the evidence being nil in both cases?

7.  The variations within each species are all explicable by Mendel's laws of genetics, and variations are limited, as any breeder of plants or animals knows.  So why do you blithely assume powers for selection which we have never shown in the real world?

8.  All known species (several million) appear fully developed with all vital organs fully operational.  There are no part-formed eyes, half-developed intestines or evolving feathers.  Since evolution can only operate by the slow production of new organs in any species, please explain why such structures are never found.  We also now know that there are no vestigial organs, all organs so labelled in the past having simply been termed vestigial in ignorance of their real function.  Again please explain why we don't actually find vestigial organs.

9.  Each human brain contains about one hundred thousand billion electrical connections (more than can be found in all the world's electrical appliances).  Please explain carefully how such complexity, in every normal human being, could possibly have been produced purely by chance.

Similarly many animals possess sophisticated equipment that science has been unable to fully replicate: the radar system of bats, the sonar of whales and dolphins, the electro-detection system of the platypus, the aerodynamics of hummingbirds, the navigation systems of many birds, and the amazing self-repair systems of almost all forms of life.  Why is it necessary to reject the idea that such sophisticated facilities required a super-intelligence to install?  And since it is rejected by evolutionists, please show from the mathematics of chaos and chance, and from the basic tenets of information theory, how such mind-numbing complexity could arise.

10.  While single-celled creatures are numerous there are none with two, three, four or even twenty cells, and, further, there are no fossils of such intermediate forms.  Thus there is no evolutionary sequence from single-celled to multi-celled creatures.  Please explain carefully, therefore, how single cells produced multicellular organisms, and give a convincing answer as to why we have found not a single fossil of such an intermediate.

11.  The DNA in every form of life contains a set of information for the development and activity of that form of life, accompanied by elaborate transmission and duplication systems, without which life would cease.  This complexity cannot be accounted for by chance, but testifies to intelligent design in every form of life.  Since you disagree with this explain in careful detail how in your view the genetic code arose, and how the first living cell managed the mind-boggling feat of selecting only the left-handed ribose nucleic acids when producing something approaching a thousand genes, each with many hundreds if not thousands of nucleic acids, all in the correct order, and all the repair and duplication mechanisms for the DNA, and, not least, how it produced the RNA translation system.

12.  The genetic information encoded in the DNA in each of our cells, if written out in detail, would require as many as 4,000 large volumes of closely printed text.  This is no accident of nature.  How did this immense amount of correct information come to be generated purely by chance, and in one fell swoop when a cell first 'appeared'?

13.  The structural stability of the DNA helix in each cell not only depends on the ribose nucleic acids but also depends upon some twenty different proteins.  These specific proteins can themselves only be produced under the direction of the information in the DNA; therefore the whole complex system must have been formed complete from the beginning of life.  Please explain how this circular dependency, which is absolute, could have been generated without a super-intelligent and super-powerful entity actually performing the work.

14.  Amino acids formed synthetically are both right-handed or left-handed.  The amino acids in all forms of life are all left-handed, without exception, clear evidence of intelligent selection and design.  Again, as in item 11, please explain in detail how in your view the 'primordial cell' managed the superhumanly difficult task of only selecting the left-handed optical enantiomer in every pair of amino acids, when even we have not yet devised simple means of doing this.

15.  Symbiosis, the interdependence of two forms of life, such as the fig tree and the fig-gall wasp, the yucca plant and Pronuba moth, pollen plants and the bee, each dependent for life upon the other, must have been formed complete at the same time.  there are almost endless examples of this sort of interdependency.  How did this occur, since the dependencies are circular?

16.  Fossils are evidence of extinctions, not of new forms of life.  Animals and plants that die today rot away completely in a few years, bones and all.  Therefore fossils can only be evidence of very rapid burial.  Many polystrate fossils indicate that several strata were laid rapidly round the upright fossil.  In coal deposits literally hundreds of almost identical pairs of strata have been found laid down in perfect sequence.  How could depositions of this kind have happened over millions of years?

17.  At the base of the fossil record there is evidence of many highly complex creatures, but no evidence of an evolutionary sequence.  For example the Burgess shales contain many extraordinary species which apparently have nothing which could be considered their ancestors, and which leave no following species.  The Burgess shales are dated just subsequent to the Cambrian layer, which, although itself teeming with fully formed 'life', sits on strata without any significant fossils.  How did the Cambrian animals and plants come about, and why did those in the Burgess shales leave absolutely nothing in the way of developed life when they died out?

18.  The so-called 'missing link' between one form of life and another requires many millions of missing links if a slow evolutionary process did actually take place.  But this is the problem: all are, indeed, missing.  Not just some, or most, but all.  Why?  If you think that there are such things as missing links please quote one, explain in detail how it fulfills all of the necessary criteria and show, by reference to your peers' literature, that this belief is generally upheld in the scientific community.  In addition please give just one example of a supposedly discovered 'missing link' which has managed to survive 30 years' investigation.

19.  Most dinosaurs are known only by their tracks impressed on mud that turned to stone.  In Russia, horse-hoof tracks and human footprints have been found alongside dinosaur tracks, contrary to the evolutionary scenario.  How could man's footprints appear beside those of dinosaurs if dinosaurs supposedly last roamed the earth 65 million years ago and man has only been around (according to theory) for at most a few million years?

20.  Language studies have revealed that ancient languages were far more complex than modern languages in their form, syntax, cases, genders and tenses.  Of the thirty-six known cases of feral children, i.e.  those reared without human contact, it is evident that language is not inherent but is learned from other humans.  Since this proves that language did not evolve, please explain why it could not have been an endowment from a creation.