"Enjoy the Journey" Proverbs 3: 5,6

Apologetics Series #3: Disproving the Darwinian Theory of Macro-Evolution

Many of us have been taught that the theory of evolution is only a theory as much as the theory of gravity is. We have been taught that it is the fact of how humans came into the world from apes which evolved millions of years ago from a single organism. Despite the unanswered question of where that organism came from, the Darwinian explanation of evolution remains a “fact” that supposedly negates the need for a divine creator.

However, while microevolution (that verifies minor variations within a species) is supported by scientific evidence, macroevolution (that theorizes that all living organisms stemmed from a single organism) has not ever been verified by scientific facts, despite its resilience in textbooks.

All of the “evidence” is either false or misleading. Don’t believe me; believe the hundreds of biologists, chemists, zoologists, physicists, anthropologists, bioengineers, geologists, astrophysicists, and other scientists who came together to create a public and intellectually-based statement that science has failed to support Darwin’s theory in any manner.

Chances are, you were probably taught this theory with the following illustrations and correlated explanations of how it supported the Darwinian theory of evolution. Here I am, backed by hundreds of scientists, to disprove everything you have been taught.

Darwin’s Tree of Life


Despite the fact that scientists have been searching for more than a century for fossils and evidence to support this supposed “tree of life,” nothing has been found to support this diagram. In fact, “the fossil evidence, even in his day, showed the opposite: the rapid appearance of phylum-level differences in what’s called the ‘Cambrian explosion’” (Strobel 45).

The Cambrian explosion, sometimes called the Biological Big Bang, describes a geological period in which most of the major animal phyla suddenly appeared. Before that, there were some jellyfish, sponges, and worms, but absolutely nothing to support Darwin’s theory of a “long history of gradual divergence” (46).

It is illogical to believe that the fossil record is still incomplete and that we are only waiting for more evidence—so-called “missing links”—to be found to fill in the gaps of Darwin’s theory. If, after searching for a century and finding massive amounts of fossils, we still haven’t found anything to support the Darwinian theory of evolution, we can conclude that we probably are not going to find anything.

Forgetting the fossil record, some scientists have tried to trace similarities in molecular evidence, or anatomical structure, to recreate Darwin’s “tree of life”; however, between these two methods—and even within these two methods, between different labs—nothing conclusive has ever been constructed. There is absolutely no consistency to Darwin’s supposed “tree of life,” rendering it completely useless.

The Missing Link(s)

But wait, what about the fossils that they’ve found that prove to be the “missing link” between species?

Let’s begin with the archaeopteryx, the supposed link between bird and reptile.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

At first—and as some still think—this creature was perceived to be half-reptile, half-bird, a bird evolved from the dinosaurs. However, it became clear that this creature is completely a bird, although with modern feathers. Its similarities to reptiles (dinosaurs) is evident in various descriptions, such as the lack of a bill and the long tail. However, the similarities between this creature and any other creature does not prove a common ancestor any more than it could prove a common designer.

Moreover, in 1985, paleontologist Larry Martin (from the University of Kansas) declared that the bird was “not an ancestor of any modern birds [with which it has been compared]; instead, it’s a member of a totally extinct group of birds,” making the comparisons between this creature and modern birds null and void (Martin, 1985). Even ardent evolutionist Pierre Lecomte du Nouy states that archaeopteryx is not a true link. “An animal displaying characteristics belonging to two different groups cannot be treated as a true link as long as the intermediary stages have not been found, and as long as the mechanisms of transition remain unknown” (Lecomte de Nouy, 1947).

There are similarities between many creatures—for example, the egg-laying, duck-billed platypus and ducks—that have never been used as “evidence” for a transition between species. There are simply similarities between creatures in nature. How did that happen? We just don’t know.

More significantly is the Java Man, the supposed link between apes and humans.


While excavating on an Indonesian island between 1891 and 1892, Dutch scientist Eugene Dubois discovered some bones later deemed the “Java man,” the missing link. It supposedly “represents a stage in the development of modern man from a smaller-brained ancestor” (World Book Encyclopedia). However, the only bones present are the skullcap (pictured above with an imagined form for the rest of the head), femur, and three teeth. This would have been completely disqualified from consideration in the scientific community by today’s standards. Moreover, prominent anatomist Sir Arthur Keith determined, contrary to what scientists had assumed, that the skull cap “was distinctly human and reflected a brain capacity well within the range of humans living today” (Lubenow).

Even if the rest of the skeleton had been present, you would not see the so-called “missing link” between apes and humans; you would simply find a human from a long time ago.


Homologies are the similarities one creature, or species, shares with another. For example, the following chart illustrates the similarities between the fin of a whale, the legs of a frog, horse, and lion, the arm of a human, and the wings of a bat and a bird. Obviously, there are some similarities between the appendages.

homology-limbsHowever, do these similarities point to a common ancestor or to a common design? What is ironic is that homologies were not discovered by Darwin, but rather described by theistic scientists predating him. One, Richard Owen, said these “pointed toward a common archetype or design, not toward descent with modification” (55).

The mere similarities between the appendages do not necessarily prove a common ancestor. Therefore, scientists have tried to find the mechanism which creates these homologies, without luck. One proposed theory is called “common developmental pathways.” In this theory, the homologies can be traced back to similar cells and processes in the embryonic stage. However, this is simply untrue. Another theory is that similar genes produce similar homologies. There are some homologies that are developed by totally different genes, and very similar genes that do not create homologies, disproving this theory.

All in all, science cannot prove why we have homologies. Even the experts admit that it is a complete mystery. Homologies could be evidence of either a common ancestor or common design, despite what your textbooks might say.

Embryonic Similarities

Many students believe that all animals are very similar as undeveloped embryos and only begin to differentiate towards the end of the fetal cycle. There is some truth in this, but a lot less than we were taught in biology class. For example, you’re probably familiar with the following diagram created by Ernest Haeckel in the nineteenth-century.


The first problem—and probably the most minor of all—is that Haeckel “cherry-picked his examples” (Strobel 51). Firstly, he shows four different kinds of mammals, but only placental ones, conveniently leaving out those which are very different. “The remaining four classes he showed—reptiles, birds, amphibians and fish—happen to be more similar than the ones he omitted” (51). For example, the example used for amphibians—a salamander—is much more similar to the form he desired to fit rather than another type of amphibian, such as a frog.

The second problem is that what “Haeckel claimed is the early stage of development is […] actually the midpoint of development […] If you go back to the earlier stages, the embryos look far more different from each other” (52). This scientist fudged with the facts in order to illustrate what he so desired. Embryologists now agree that in some species a “developmental hourglass” can be seen, which refers to the dissimilarities in the initial stages, some similarities in the middle stages, and more dissimilarites towards the end of the embyronic stage. This in no way supports Darwinian evolution, and that’s why you often won’t hear about it.

The third and largest problem is that the “similarities in the early stages were faked” and that they do not match actual photographs of embryos (50). Take a look at the drawings compared with actual photographs below.

Haeckel's Embryos 2

What’s astounding is that they were first exposed by his colleagues in the late 1860s, yet they’re still shown in textbooks today! Evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould called Haeckel’s sin the “academic equivalent of murder” (Gould, 2002).

So why are these lies still taught in textbooks?

As anthropologist Ian Tattersall states, much of science has become so “political and subjective” that some fields, such as paleoanthropology, “[have] the form but not the substance of science” (Tattersall, 1996).

Many scientific facts are omitted, created, fudged or faked to push a political, (a)religious, or other ideological agenda, unfortunately. Scientists should adhere to science and teach this generation and future generations the truth and refuse to teach lies with enormous consequences.

As always, please feel free to comment or ask anything! Maybe there’s a piece of evidence—or an entirely different theory—that you were taught in school that you are questioning. Let me know and I’ll try to give you answers!

-Allison Shockley

For more information, check out these sources…

Denton, M. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Bethesda, MD: Adler & Adler, 1986.

Hanegraaff, H. The Face that Demonstrates the Farce of Evolution. Nashville, TN: Word, 1998.

Johnson, P. Darwin on Trial. 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993.

Wells, J. Icons of Evolution. Washington, DC: Regnery, 2000.

Gould, S.J. “Abscheulich! Atrocious!” Natural History. March 2002.

Martin, L.D. “The Relationship of Archaeoptryx to Other Birds” in Hecht, M.K., Ostrom, G.V., & Wellnhofer, P. ed. The Beginning of Birds. Eichstatt: Freunde des Jura-Museums, 1985.

Lecomte du Nuoy, P, Human Destiny. NY: Longmaus, Green & Co., 1947.

World Book Encyclopedia, volume 10.

Lubenow, M.L. Bones of Contention.


Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *