Molecules-to-man evolution is the supposed process by which the first cell evolved into the diversity of life we see today. Natural selection and mutations are considered its driving force. However, Darwinian evolution has never been observed despite numerous protestations to the contrary. Natural selection and mutations cannot add the information necessary to change one kind of organism into another.

Natural Selection

Evolution requires an organism to gain new information, while natural selection is the loss of information. Rather than producing new information, natural selection reduces or redistributes pre-existing genetic information. Evolution requires a mechanism for a gain of information, something that has never been observed. 

The amazing variations within dogs for example are not the result of evolution. Dog breeders merely select pre-existing traits they don’t create them. This selection of pre-existing traits results in genetically inferior organisms, this means your poodle has less genetic variety then its wolf ancestor. It devolved not evolved! Natural selection is incapable of transforming a dog into a cat no matter how much time is given. 

Next time you hear a report about “evolution” happening, ask this question: Have they actually demonstrated the addition of new information into the animals’ DNA? If not, then it is just natural selection being mistakenly called evolution.

Mutations

Primarily degrade information; beneficial ones are rare and limited (e.g., loss-of-function). They cannot accumulate to build new organs or body plans. 

No Increase in Genetic Information

There is no known observable process by which new genetic information can be added to an organism’s genetic code, let alone how that information could arise from random chemicals in the first place. Information requires an intelligent source, since it requires not only data but also the ability to decode that data. This alone is enough to refute evolution because there’s no way for a fish to become an amphibian without new information.

The Origin of Life in Darwinian Evolution

Any ideas about how life could have started on earth overlook one important rule in biology: Life doesn’t, cannot, and will never come from nonlife. Life always comes from life. That’s the law—the law of biogenesis, to be exact. Scientists who try to simulate the origin of life really show how much intelligence is required for life to begin in the first place.

The First Cell (Abiogenesis Probabilities)

The origin of life by chance is statistically impossible. Even forming one functional protein (e.g., 150 amino acids) has odds like 1 in 10^195—far exceeding the probabilistic resources of the universe (~10^120 events since the Big Bang). A minimal cell requires coordinated DNA, proteins, membranes, and machinery simultaneously. No natural process explains the specified complexity and information; it points to intelligent design.

The Miller-Urey experiment 

In the 1950s, a famous experiment at the University of Chicago known as the Miller-Urey experiment attempted to demonstrate the naturalistic origin of life. In the textbooks and headlines, they are said to have created the building blocks of life in a test tube. What they actually created was a toxic soup that included amino acids, which had to be removed from the reaction chamber before they were destroyed in a second pass. The experiment also deliberately excluded oxygen, as it would have destroyed their results. This experiment is still cited today as evidence of life from nonlife, likely because all attempts to improve on the experiment have failed to produce even the basic structures needed for life.

Ape Men

The pervasive ape-to-human montage and other “reconstructions” are just artwork based on imagination, wishful thinking, and presuppositional influence. All the supposed ape-men can be classified as either human or ape, not transitional forms.

• LUCY Nearly all experts agree Lucy was just a 3 foot tall chimpanzee.

• HEIDELBERG MAN Built from a jaw bone that was conceded by many to be quite human.

• NEBRASKA MAN Scientifically built up from one tooth, later found to be the tooth of an extinct pig.

• PILTDOWN MAN The jawbone turned out to belong to a modern ape.

• PEKING MAN Supposedly 500,000 years old, but all evidence has disappeared.

• NEANDERTHAL MAN Not only are Neanderthal skeletons human, but the DNA sequencing has shown that they are fully human and interbred with other people groups.

• CRO-MAGNON MAN One of the earliest and best established fossils is at least equal in physique and brain capacity to modern man... so what's the difference?

• MODERN MAN This genius thinks we came from a monkey.

“Professing themselves to be wise they became fools.” - Romans 1:22

Human-Chimp DNA Similarities

The oft-cited 99% human-chimp DNA similarity is a myth based on cherry-picked aligned segments. Accounting for the full genome drops similarity significantly (around 84-85%), with key differences in critical areas. Similarities are better interpreted as the result of having the same designer not common descent. 

Vestigial Organs and Junk DNA

Evolutionists claim that humans and other animals have organs and DNA leftover from evolution. But these reports are often based on evolutionary expectations. The appendix, for example, was once thought vestigial, but now, we know its function. Even a true loss of function shows a world that is in decay, which is exactly what the Bible says. 

Transitional Fossils

If evolution were true, trillions of transitional forms should exist. Instead, the fossil record reveals distinct kinds appearing abruptly with no clear intermediates linking fish-to-amphibians, reptiles-to-birds, or apes-to-man. Proposed examples show mosaic features but function fully in their environments, consistent with created diversity rather than evolutionary gradualism.

All Scientists Agree

Even if every single person accepted an idea, that doesn’t make the idea correct. Many embrace evolution because they won’t allow for anything miraculous or supernatural. But there are a growing number of scientists, creationist and not, who do not find the supposed evidence for evolution to be valid or convincing.