4 Flaws that Disprove the Theory of Common Ancestry

There are countless gaps and flaws in the theory of common ancestry which prove it an invalid explanation for the arisal of species. Four of the common ancestry theory’s biggest flaws are addressed here.

1. Orphan non-coding DNA

Orphan genes are defined as genes without detectable homologues in other lineages. Their existence is a problem for the common ancestry theory because it shows that animals have genes which did not mutate or derive from “common ancestors.” From an evolutionist paper: “A substantial fraction of coding regions in any genome sequenced consists of orphan genes, but the evolutionary and functional significance of orphan genes is not understood.”

Orphan genes do not have known developmental pathways. Evolutionist studies disprove their own “possible explanations” unknowingly. From this study:


“A possible explanation for the evolutionary origin of orphan genes is that they evolve so fast that sequence similarity is lost even within relatively short evolutionary time-spans”

“Intriguingly, we also find among the orphan gene class sequences with very low divergence rates (dN/dS < 0.02) which is in the range of highly conserved non-orphan genes. Thus, orphan genes are not necessarily all fast-evolving genes.”

2. Abiogenesis could never have happened

The proof for this is the fact that RNA nucleotides don’t automatically assemble in water, and are not self-replicating.

“For starters, in water, the four chemical components of RNA—the nucleotides abbreviated A, G, C, and U—don’t spontaneously assemble to create sizable molecules. So it remains a mystery how the first long gene-length chains of RNA could have taken shape in Earth’s ancient oceans.”

Source: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2013/02/self-assembling-molecules-offer-new-clues-lifes-possible-origin

Evolutionists realize that nucleotides can’t self-assemble, as the bases do not come together in water. They make speculations like that there could have been proto-RNA, with no evidence for their speculation and no evidence that proto-RNA is even possible.

Because RNA can’t self-assemble, the supposed first cell had no way to come into existence. Because abiogenesis never happened, only creation could have happened.

3. Endosymbionts can’t turn into organelles

This is self-apparent. Bacteria have no mechanism to do so. Organelles(mitochondria and chloroplasts) are completely different from bacteria, varying in that they have a much lower amount of base pairs(16,569 vs 2-4 million), have different structure, and are not living organisms like bacteria.

The evolutionists are those who need to back up their extraordinary claim, and they have never done so. Because endosymbionts could never have evolved into mitochondria and chloroplasts, there is no mechanism for eukaryotes to have come from prokaryotes, which debunks the entirety of common ancestry theory.

4. Complex organisms have no mechanism to evolve from simple organisms, and have no way to develop a gene regulatory network

There exists no mechanism for multicellularity to develop from unicellularity. The most commonly cited studies on potential origins of multicellular organisms are on organisms like Brewer’s yeast which already have the gene for multicellularity according to the evolutionists themselves(in Brewer’s yeast, for example, this is known as hyphal growth).

Sometimes evolutionists cite bacterial bio-film formation as evidence of this possibility, but it is invalid here because bacteria are known to be able to send cellular signals to each other for gathering. This has nothing to do with differentiating.

This demonstrates that single-celled organisms couldn’t have evolved into complex organisms, which is another way to refute the entirety of common ancestry.

Atheists believe in common ancestry because they have no explanation for the arisal of life without religion and decide to fall back on specious unproven claims like that of the common ancestry theory. The default belief is creation, evolutionism is the unsubstantiated and now disproven claim.

Contributing member – A member of the Muslim.Chat community who has chosen to remain anonymous. The member is currently a student of biological sciences and has taken a special interest in researching topics like evolution and common ancestry.

Muslim.Chat is the fastest growing and only transparent online Muslim community. We currently use Discord to speak to each other, but we are available across many platforms. Join us and be apart of a broad-minded Muslim community dedicated to learning, having Halal fun and spreading Islam.

If you liked this article or any of our other articles, remember to share it on social media.

Are you interested in writing articles for us? Join our community and share your ideas with us.