UnMasking Mistakes in Memes of Evolution – Part 2

As I explained in the opening article of this series, the purpose of this series is to unmask the faulty logic and science behind defenses given for evolutionary thought. These faulty reasons wind up in memes presented as pseudoscientific (read false) explanations for why creationists are supposedly wrong when pointing out the various and numerous problems of evolution. So in this series I’ll point out why the claims evolutionists use to defend their faulty theory are wrong and why such explanations actually provide no defense for the failed theory of evolution.

In this group of evolutionary memes we’ll see primarily three types of problems:

1. Denials of basic evolutionary belief
2. Claims with no evidence, and/or no defense
3. Claims which avoid the issue and never address the problem that has been pointed out

Okay, so here we go. Links are provided for easy sharing

Meme: “Evolution is the belief that we evolved from a rock”
Link: http://rationalfaith.com/2017/03/unmasking-mistakes-in-memes-of-evolution-part-2/#meme_evolvedfrom_rock

Here we see problem #1: the denial of a basic evolutionary belief.

Let’s rehearse the Big Bang/Evolutionary beginning  to see why. According to the theory, the Big Bang goes bang creating mostly hydrogen and helium. The hydrogen supposedly collapses into a star – meaning nuclear fusion is active, which creates heavier elements.  When the nuclear fuel is exhausted the star explodes spewing out stellar dust and the aforementioned heavier elements which become seeds in the next generation of stars for even heavier elements.  Pay attention to what happens to the stellar dust (from which rocks are made). According to the evolutionist story telling:

“Much of the ancient star dust is sucked into the sun, never to be seen again. But the leftovers clump together to form comets, asteroids, planets and eventually life.”[1]

Thus out of the rocky planets that have formed from the stellar dust and rock, life emerges. This is what evolutions claim, not creationists. Here is a link to  Neil deGrasse Tyson, host of the Cosmos reboot “Cosmos: A spacetime Odyssey” claiming we’re all “star dust”:

I suppose some will quibble over whether “star dust” is the same as “rocks”, particularly since Genesis states we were made by God from the “dust of the ground” (Gen 2.7) (not star dust – no stars existed yet). So to be precise, here is a video clip of astrophysicist and evolutionist Dr. Michelle Thaller, waxing eloquent on thinking of herself  as a “very complicated rock”[2] and that we’re all cousins to the rocks in a mountain side:

Michelle Thaller

So this claim – that evolutionists believe we evolved from rocks – come from evolutionists themselves. When you think about it, it’s a natural conclusion since evolutionists must necessarily believe the Nebular Theory[3] as the origin of  rocky planets (or else they’re back to creation). When all you have to start with is a rocky planet (oceans didn’t come until millions of years later – see here from Lessons from Pluto on why) what else can you say except we evolved from rocks?

When evolutionists stop claiming we evolved from rocks, creationists can stop pointing out evolutionists claim we evolved from rocks.


Meme: “Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Evolution can’t answer this.”
Link: http://rationalfaith.com/2017/03/unmasking-mistakes-in-memes-of-evolution-part-2/#meme_chicken_orthe_egg

Here we see problem #3: Claims which avoid the issue and never address the problem that has been pointed out.

I suppose this meme is persuasive to evolutionists, some of whom believe that dinosaurs evolved into birds. (Yes really.)[4]. So they see a theropod dinosaur, and then a chicken and believe the chicken evolved from the dinosaur. Need I state the obvious? There is no evidence in this meme of the question at hand, namely which came first – the chicken or the egg; or the  dinosaur or the egg for that matter. And in passing, neither is there any evidence in this meme or in the fossil record that dinosaurs evolved into birds – but that’s a separate issue.  Back to our question at hand – chicken or the egg, which is first? Merely stating “Yes, it can.” is not evidence. As atheist and evolutionist Christopher Hitchens affirms: “What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”[5] This meme merely Avoids the question, thus with no evidence I can dismiss it with a logical wave of Hitchen’s hand bearing  the chicken or the egg? No doubt evolutionists will want to throw  Hitchen’s razor  back at me and say neither have I offered any evidence.  Very well then, I offer this: What is it that allows a fertilized egg to hatch into whatever laid the egg? Answer: To a large degree, the information and instructions in the DNA in the egg of course. A better question is what is the source of information? Answer: The only source of  information is an intelligent mind. Well known intelligent design advocate Stephen Meyer states:

“So at present there is no naturalistic explanation, no natural cause that produces information. Not natural selection, not self organizational processes, not pure chance.


But we do know of a cause which is capable of producing information, and that is intelligence.[6]

Stephen Meyer

Evolution has no answer to either origin of the information in DNA, or the chicken or the egg – which first problem; but scripture tells us the intelligence came from God, and the mature creature God created came  before the egg. (Gen 1.20-25)

Meme: “Bird wings could not have evolved. A wing stub won’t help you fly.”
Link: http://rationalfaith.com/2017/03/unmasking-mistakes-in-memes-of-evolution-part-2/#meme_birdscannot_evolve

As we’ll see, this is problem #2: Claims with no evidence, and/or no defense

As a licensed pilot and a certified flight instructor I could go into much detail on why the claim that any animal could evolve flight through unguided, purposeless evolution is a foolish, laughable idea. But the goal is to keep these short. Let me respond first to the claim – wings evolved not from stubs, but from feathered arms. First, there is no evidence wings evolved from anything; and second, the bigger problem is that flight cannot evolve; it must be designed – which is the main point of the creationist claim.

Let me focus not on whether wings evolved, but on the main problem: that flight cannot evolve. Why? Remember, evolution is an unguided, purposeless process (as this evolution supporting meme points out).  Evolution cannot guide or plan anything. Therefore anything that requires  planning, design or forethought is impossible for evolutionary processes. Flight requires the design and forethought to allow multiple components to come together and be operational and functional simultaneously. Such functionality cannot be achieved through the random, purposeless,  unguided processes available to evolution. (Natural selection will not help either as you’ll see below.)  Let me illustrate with just one facet of a bird: the skeleton. Here is a quote from “Bird Flight” – a book that details the many design features that allow birds to fly. I’ve added numbers in parentheses () following needed changes as a quick easy count of the needed adaptations for the skeleton alone:

The skeleton is considerably lightened  by the loss(1) and fusion(2) of bones, while the breastbone is enlarged by the keel(3)  to anchor flight muscles(4). The backbone is fused(5) to the pelvis and the tail bones are reduced to a short stub(6), the pygostyle.”[7]

Notice the numerous changes made for flight to just the skeleton. We have not even begun to talk about overall body shape, wing design, shape and function; the complexity of feather design, muscle design and movement, specialized lungs, programming in the brain to coordinate the movement of the body and wings for flight – among other things. All these changes must be made simultaneously, and without anyone designing them, and wind up functioning in our Beipiaosaurus inexptus theropod dinosaur (above) as soon as it is kicked out of whatever protective environments its parents provide. It won’t do to just have one change accidentally made as evolution requires; they must all be there simultaneously because clearly, the requirements for flight are irreducibly complex. Otherwise since it can’t fly, it will rely on other means to survive (fast running, hiding/camouflage, etc.), and any single step toward a single feature helpful to flying will be lost to natural selection. Natural selection can only remove features, it can’t add new ones. The retention or even enhancement of a single feature needed for flight won’t help with survival without all the other features. Therefore since there is no advantage in retaining a lone feature helpful to flight, natural selection cannot select it since by itself, a single feature doesn’t enhance survivability.

Thus in meme above, “wing stubs” is simply an example of a path evolution cannot take.  In fact, there is no path evolution can take to arrive at flight. Flight cannot evolve. It is irreducibly complex must be intelligently designed.[8] This meme engages in a claim with no evidence, and no defense. Couple that with the evidence that flight has only been observed to come about by design, not chance and the claim flight evolved can be dismissed.

Meme: “When the first human evolved, was it male or female?

Once again we see this evolutionist avoiding the question. (Problem #3.) Let’s rehearse what evolutionists believe to demonstrate this is yet another question they cannot answer.

Evolutionists believe life started as a single, replicating cell. Somehow the cell was able to differentiate functions so it could make the huge, insurmountable leap to becoming a multi-cellular creature.  As a multi-cellular creature, cells somehow kept on specializing[9] so you could get a collection of cells performing one function – like providing motion (muscles), or oxygen (respiration) etc. Now recall, all this must happen, according to evolutionary doctrine, without plan, purpose or design. So the question arises, how could evolution ever arrive at sexual reproduction? Consider what must happen: one group of cells in one creature must – without design or purpose develop into male organs. Another group of cells in a different creature must (without reason,, design or purpose – since evolution is purposeless) develop into complementary female organs – again without plan or purpose. And the two separate organs in the two separate creatures must be able to work together to create a third creature like the first two. How did these complementary reproductive systems come about without plan, purpose, design or reason? Remember evolution cannot plan or purpose anything so how and why would it happen?

Let me provide an example of how impossible this scenario is. I have in mind what I’ll call a creature that likewise requires two distinct individual parts. Call them individuals. Let’s simulate what evolution must do in a thought experiment. You’re evolution building one creature; I’ll simulate building the other. Since evolution is mindless and purposeless (as this evolutionist confirms here), you must build your part without knowing what I’m building, how it must work, or even what the outcome needs to be. Impossible right? Remember that, but let me give you a hint (which evolution would never have.) My “creature” is a two part website – the front end that users see, the back end, the database system that stores the data and provides the information to display to the user. So I’m assembling[10] my database creature, and you don’t know how to connect to it, what the passwords are to get in, or what kind of tables of information it has. In fact you don’t even know where it is. Yet you (in the role of evolution) must still come up with a front end creature that works with my back end creature, without knowing the plan or design, how it’s structured, what language it’s written in and speaks, or even where it is.

Even with this information pointing you in the general direction, can you do it? Of course not. Neither can evolution, the “blind watchmaker”[11], create complementary reproduction systems in two separate creatures. Particularly when you consider that reproduction is many times more complex that the “creatures” in the above thought experiment. Clearly, the  meaningless, purposeless processes of evolution cannot evolve  the differentiated organs in separate creatures that allow for reproduction via two distinct creatures. The whole idea is simply ludicrous.  But then evolutionists believe some pretty ludicrous stuff.

Well boys and girls, ladies and gents, that’s all we have room for in this article. Remember, a list of all evolution promoting memes – and the problem(s) with them that have been debunked thus far can be found here. You can send me a request to debunk an evolutionary meme here.

Duane Caldwell | posted 20 March, 2017 | printer friendly version

Related article:
Mistakes in Memes of Evolution Part 1


1.Narrator, How the Universe Works episode “Dawn of Life”, Science channel/Discovery Communications documentary, 2015

2. Michelle Thaller, ref. from How the Universe Works episode “Dawn of Life”

3. For more on the Nebular theory (aka nebular hypothesis) see http://rationalfaith.com/2017/01/lessons-from-pluto/#nebularhypothesis

4. The hypothesis that dinosaurs evolved into birds are suggested in evolutionist works such as The Dinosaur Feather Mystery, (Discovery Documentary, 2004); and not so subtly depicted in graphics such as the cover of evolutionist Jerry Coyne’s book, “Why Evolution is True“, (New York: Penguin Group, 2009, cover) which depicts – a theropod to bird transition. That he intends this to show evolution is suggested by both the title of the book and the fact that he includes the bird Archaeopteryx in the sequence which most evolutionists claim as a feathered dinosaur.  View a replica of the cover here.

5. Christopher Hitchens; Some call this “Hitchen’s razor” See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens’s_razor

6. Stephen Meyer, Unlocking the Mystery of life, Illustra Media Documentary (DVD), 2002

7. Robert Burton, “Bird Flight“, New York:Facts on File, 1990, p. 51

8. For more on the complexity needed for flight in flying creatures see:
Prof. Andy McIntosh, “The Intricacies of Flight in the Natural World”, Answers In Genesis, 3 March 2016, https://answersingenesis.org/animal-behavior/intricacies-of-flight-natural-world\

9. Such specialization requires additional information and programming, and as previously mentioned, information only comes from an intelligent designer, thus this is impossible for evolution. Evolutionists have no idea where the information comes from – for cells to supposedly specialize and start doing remarkable things like light sensitivity in eyes. They remain clueless, but still they tell stories – like the one above. Such stores are just that stories, not science.

10 This assembly will of course include designing it, and design is of course not a part of evolution, and thus not allowable in evolutionary processes. However for the purposes of this illustration, we need a creature to work with that has parts that become differentiated from it’s original form. Disallowing design shows how impossible evolution is, because you cannot even illustrate the failed processes because you can’t even come up with an initial creature to show the difficulty of the origin of specialized organs and features. (Origin of the first creature is a real problem for Darwinists by the way – they have no idea how the first living creature came about.)

11. The “Blind Watchmaker” a term popularized by evolutionist Richard Dawkins in a book by the same name.

All memes by Duane Caldwell © 2017
All images licensed, or used by permission from the listed source

Featured: “Unmasking Mistakes in Memes 2” composite by Duane Caldwell, © 2017
Black and gold mask © yuliaglam | fotolia | used by permission

Michelle Thaller – By NASA Goddard Space Flight Center [CC BY 2.0], via Wikimedia Commons
T Rex – MorgueFile
Chicken – MorgueFile
Beipiaosaurus © AlienCat | fotolia | used by permission
Lucy Australopithecus – By Mpinedag (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0], via Wikimedia Commons

Comments are closed.