The engine that is supposed to propel evolution needs to have the muscle for shape-shifting one kind of creature into another. That engine is described as neo-Darwinism, the combination of mutations to create genetic variations, and natural selection to winnow out the fittest variants.
 
An immediate problem arises in that this mechanism must explain all features of all creatures in every environment. The fin of the fish and the legs of the crab must both be explained by water. The short neck of the elephant and long neck of the giraffe must both be explained by leaf food . . . and so on through all of nature. Every environmental niche contains myriad creatures with different physical features and abilities. But on the same piece of geography can be found bacteria, insects, fish, reptiles, amphibians, birds, mammals . . . all manner of creature in every imaginable color, size, and configuration.
 
It would seem, if evolution were true, there should be just one "most fit" "naturally selected" creature in each niche. If natural selection effectively dictated form and function, the desert would have one kind of creature, the ocean another, the forest another, and the air yet another. Instead, there are millions of varieties in each of these habitats, about nine million total species. This effectively denies that evolution is a powerful and exacting force sufficient to explain the biological world.
 
Sometimes there is variation in response to environmental pressure, but such variation is subtle and never does something like create a new beneficial organ or a whole new creature. The distinction of creatures one from another that exists in the world, frankly, fits better creative ingenuity and even artistic flair.
 
Each Step and Detail Must Be Explained
 
Consider just the eyelid. It includes skin cells, muscles, nerves, blood vessels, lymphatics, connective tissue, mucosal tissue, sweat glands, sebaceous glands, lashes, hormones, immune cells and so forth, all arranged in a precise three-dimensional shape, and wired and plumbed to the rest of the body so it can function both voluntarily and on autopilot. Each of those parts, in turn, has millions of cell, organelle, and biochemical parts. Evolution must account for every single detail down to the placement of each atom.
 
But explaining such detail has never been done other than in very broad, and sweeping terms, such as: "The eyelid evolved because it was necessary to protect and lubricate the eye. Those with lids were more fit than those without them. Thus our 'lidded' ancestors had a selective advantage."
 
Such simplistic conjecture doesn't explain the origin and step-by-step transformation of any of the millions of components.
 
Irreducible Complexity
 
It is assumed that life is a mere summation of parts, a philosophy known as materialistic reductionism. Thus, like machines, organisms are thought to be understood by taking them apart.
 
Such exploration has revealed some aspects of how living things work but does not point to evolutionary origin. That's because functional things are irreducibly complex. Mutate (remove, damage, or add) parts and creatures either do not work (die) or become less functional (diseased). Yet all evolutionary precursors supposedly had less developed, and thus nonfunctional, parts. Thus, living things cannot evolve—add and remove parts—they are irreducibly complex and thus could not incrementally mutate to be less or more than what they are.
 
Mutations Are Not Nice Things
 
To make evolution happen, mutations must be called upon again and again to create complex and beneficial changes. But mutations are random disruptions of the information contained in DNA. The human genome, for example, contains the equivalent of the information in 3 quadrillion (3 X 1015) fact-filled books. All human experience proves that changes to information result in degradation, not improvement.
 
The pressure in nature is always from complex to random no matter how much natural selection is applied. That's why, in practice, mutations are essentially 100% lethal or disadvantageous. In humans, mutations are linked to dwarfism, albinism, Huntington's Chorea, Down's syndrome, cystic fibrosis, familial hypercholesterolemia, cancer aging . . . to only begin the list of hundreds of deleterious effects.
 
The inability, or reduced capacity, of humans to synthesize certain nutrients, such as the 22 essential amino acids, vitamins, long-chain fatty acids, antioxidants, and others without which we suffer disease and death is likely traceable to mutational damage. For example, the essentiality of vitamin C is traced to a mutation in the GULO (gulonolactone oxidase) gene. Minus this vitamin in our diet, scurvy and an array of pleomorphic (various form) diseases and weaknesses occur. At our beginning, unspoiled by mutational damage, we were likely far more nutritionally self-sufficient.
 
Cancer is now devastating modern society with 1600 people in the US, and 21,000 worldwide dying from it each day. Causes ultimately relate to disrupted normal metabolism or altered genetics. All carcinogens (chemicals that cause cancer) are mutagens. For the same reasons you don't want to store nuclear waste under your bed, you don't want an existence driven by mutations.
 
There is not one example of a beneficial mutation that increases the functional complexity of an organism. An increase in functional complexity—needed for evolution in the molecule-to-man sense—should not be confused with mutations that may increase survivability. For example, the AIDS virus is thought to mutate resistance to drugs. But the AIDS virus does not become something more complex, such as a bacterium or protozoan. If given reprieve from the drugs, it will just revert to its original wild type. In fact, it may not even be mutations that create such resistance. Epigenetics demonstrates that new characteristics in organisms are not new and are not mutations, but rather the molecular switching on and off of existing genetic codes.
 
The Anti-Evolution DNA Mechanism
 
Each day thousands of mutations occur throughout the body. These result from ionizing radiation, cosmic rays, chemicals, and other factors. We wouldn't survive if not for biochemical systems within cells that have the ability to detect, excise, and repair mutations. These DNA repair mechanisms are not trivial. Some 4,600 biochemicals are engaged in the moment-by-moment repair of mutated DNA.
 
Think of that. We live because we have automatic mechanisms that repair mutations. These repair mechanisms not only help keep us alive, but they also lock creatures into what they are. They are evolution preventers and our survival depends on them.
 
The Ultimate Survivor
 
Fast-reproducing microorganisms have a high mutation rate and should have long ago evolved out of their single-celled retardation. They should no longer exist. But they do—and they look just like their progenitors, no matter how far back in time we go or how many trillions of reproductive cycles occur. Recall the 3.8 billion-year-old stromatolite proteobacteria that still exist today, unchanged.
 
Then there's this guy, a Tardigrade, commonly known as a water bear. It can survive and reproduce in the vacuum of outer space, on the highest peaks, frozen in Antarctica, boiling in hot springs, and enduring 16,000 psi at the bottom of the ocean. They survive high radiation, heat to over 300°F, and being frozen almost to absolute zero. They can be desiccated for years and brought back to life by just adding water. Their estimated life span is 200 years.

⌕ Click to enlarge

​Since survivability is the thesis of evolution, life should have stayed as microbes and Tardigrades, not evolved into more specialized and thus more vulnerable creatures. Better yet, life should have not even begun, since the inorganic elements of which it is composed is virtually indestructible. Better even yet, stay just energy that is totally indestructible.
 
The Missing Links
 
If evolution is true, the world should abound with transitional mutated organs and organisms. There would be no need to search for "missing links" since they would be everywhere in the fossil record and alive today.
 
Forming new organs would require millions of transitional steps because billions of different chemical parts need to be developed, transformed, and interlinked with one another. These steps should be clearly evident everywhere in living and fossilized creatures in countless gradations.
 
Given evolution, it would now be impossible to clearly differentiate one sort of creature from another. But the biota is not a blur. Rather, it is demarcated by distinct, recognizable, and well-developed forms, called syngameons, that remain true to their kind. Humans stay humans, chimps stay chimps, dogs stay dogs.
 
Culling the Transitions
 
If a step occurred toward a new trait but was not functional and advantageous, it would make the organism less fit. A budding wing cannot know, it just hangs in there, that a million years hence it will be a functional flight organ. Instead, natural selection would cull out organisms with useless appendages that are in the developmental stages.
 
There is no survival value of a nub destined to be a wing in a million years or so, or a flopping appendage that has a few, scraggly, wannabe feathers emerging here and there. Any random change in an existing organism will make the creature genetically discombobulated, less fit than the form from which it was derived. Natural selection is not a savior, it is a pitiless executioner.
 
Impossible to Explain by Evolution
 
The planthopper, Laternaria servillei, has at one end the perfect shape of a small alligator's head and has painted on its back the perfect likeness of alligator teeth, eyes, nostrils, and markings. The only obvious purpose is to scare away predators. Evolutionary transitions leading to this likeness would have been amorphous white blotches signaling to predators, "Come eat me." Thus, the transitions would have been gobbled up. If there were no transitions, there could be no planthopper. But there is. There is no mutational or genetic mechanism that could account for such a feature. The only reasonable conclusion is that the likeness was created fully formed.

⌕ Click to enlarge

Macaws live in a rain forest that contains some 40,000 varieties of trees. Only about ten produce edible fruit for the birds. Of the ten, most only bear fruit a few days each year and some only do so every several years. With no written language or maps, how was the macaw ability to find the right trees developed or transmitted? The capability could not arise by chance mutations and selection. The forest floor would have long ago been fertilized with the exhausted bodies of macaws waiting for the right mutations enabling them to find the right ten trees at the right times of the year.
 
The orb-weaver spider (Plesiometa argyra) lives in the rain forest of Costa Rica. It spins a round (orb) web. A parasitic wasp (Hymenoepimecis sp.) can temporarily paralyze the spider by stinging it in the mouth. The wasp then attaches a wasp egg to the spider's abdomen. A larva hatches from the egg, pierces the abdomen of the spider and dines on hemolymph (spider blood). The larva knows how to do this in such a way that the spider remains alive long enough to sustain the larva's development. The night the larva finally kills the spider, it gorges on the remaining contents of the spider and discards the empty shell to the forest floor.

⌕ Click to enlarge

But before that grotesque end, the larva communicates instructions to the spider to change its web weaving to a rectangular shape supported by beefed-up cabling. The new web shape accommodates the weight of the wasp larva so it can spin a cocoon to pupate and metamorphose into a wasp to begin the whole macabre cycle all over again. The special web protects the cocoon from heavy rains and the emerging wasp from being entangled in the spider's normal web.
 
It's impossible to prove in detail the step-by-step evolution of such a complex parasitic relationship, much less the wasp larvas' ability to communicate to the spider the new shape of a web to build to accommodate its executioner.
 
The end result is a new wasp that sets about finding other spiders to suck the life out of, boss around, and kill. By natural selection rules, this spider is more fit than its precursors that didn't let wasps kill them or force them to create a hatchery for their killers.
 
Speaking of cocoons, consider the impossibility of a specific step-by-step evolutionary mechanism (biochemical and genetic detail) enabling a worm to transform itself into a wasp. moth, or butterfly. Even if the mechanism were there, where would the desire for such a transformation come from?
 
The entire biological world is filled with such conundrums. Evolutionists ignore them or call them temporary gaps in understanding. The problem is, all of evolution is filled with such gaps.
 
The astounding complexity of organisms cannot be proven to result from evolution. Nor would any organism dare change significantly from its functional and surviving self. Natural selection occurs, but it is an excellent mechanism for preventing genetic aberrations (like mutations) from changing, vitiating, or destroying a species.
 
The failure of evidence and lack of any logical or proven mechanism, by Darwin's own words, defeats evolution. In The Origin of Species, he wrote:
 
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."