Evolutionists, as is true with all dedicated nominalists, reason always from secondary, tertiary, or lesser principles of thought.   One case-in-point will be discussed here in terms of refuting evolutionism.  All organisms, as is scientifically proven, must have a suitable or at least passable means of eliminating waste products, detritus, those things defecated, after consuming whatever it is (e. g., food) as their needed nutrients for trying to remain viable living entities. 

If the necessary act of elimination is not successful enough, in tending to regularize the biological system of the said organism in question, those waste products will accumulate such that the organism will experience poisoning or other detrimental, practically lethal, consequences that will, eventually, lead to death. 

Death on a massive scale leads, of course, to predictable extinction, among other dire consequences of this most logical biological process of requisite detritus elimination, which cannot be then seriously avoided to the peril of the organism.  To live, by definition, means to consume whatever it is that, of course, allows the creature to exist, persist, and, eventually, create more of its own kind and through whatever means of reproduction it possesses.  

An end product of much or most consumption is, of course, the requisite acquiring or creation of those substances or other things that must later be eliminated from the organism’s system.  This matter is an obvious fundamental imperative, moreover, regarding basic survival as survival hinges directly upon the ability to reproduce, as was above noted.

However, the ongoing act of intimate survival, by adhering to the natural biological necessity to be expelling waste products or at least in some way converting them into harmless substances that cannot kill the organism, is not really optional; it is, in fact, simply mandatory or, rather, to be expected for continued existence.   Because of this ever naturally imperative and manifestly non-optional reality for any creature, therefore, the supposed  taking of any amount of time, especially hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands, etc. of years to supposedly successfully develop even minimally adequate waste removal abilities, is really neither biologically nor scientifically tenable in any way, shape, or form.

[When this above argumentation, in terms of first principles was emailed to many evolutionists, the few who had responded simply dismissed it totally as the mere ravings of a lunatic miscreant, an uneducated ignoramus of some kind.  But, the author is completely undeterred and is not at all rationally persuaded by mere insults.  It is presented as the illogical and impossible assertion, on the part of evolutionists, that organisms do not really have to have, in their initial existence as viable biological entities, sufficient ability or more so to properly eliminate waste matter, of whatever nature it may, thus, variously consist of as per the organism concerned.]

An organism, a natural living entity, in short, cannot wait for a defecation disposal system to evolve on its behalf; it requires this ability for its existence either directly speaking as to its existence or fairly soon contingent within the functional reality of its physical nature qua basic empirical physicality itself.  Before several or, perhaps, many millions of years no less would pass in time, it would be quite dead; its lack of a waste processing/disposal ability or capacity would, therefore, quite definitely ensure proper extinction, as a most logical result for failure to possess, in some realistic manner, such a capacity, that, thus, really needs to be rather innate and integral to the very nature of the said organism. 

Evolutionism, by any definition, requires time, mainly or usually a long period of time; a living organism must live and cannot wait, does not have the time, for the unknown length of time necessary for it to supposedly acquire any fundamental functional abilities that must be, that are, vital and needed parts of its very needed ability to survive.   Or else, one ends up just stupidly accepting the meaningless, circular tautology that the survival of the fittest means that the fittest survive.  

So, evolutionism, therefore, get oddly reduced to a cheap con game of abusive, positivist semantics merely pretending to represent valid scientific knowledge.  What people need to perceive is that it is really just the aping, the parodying, of science correctly called scientism that any kind of evolutionism relies upon for its assumed verification, which is always simply fraudulent when, thus, seen upon close examination and investigation.

For finding a scientific alternative, one can locate the Discovery Institute, on the internet, regarding Intelligent Design Theory (IDT) and its massive empirical and theoretical evidence in support.  Although thinking about evolution goes back to at least the ancient Greeks who had, in fact, speculated about such things, Charles Darwin’s 1859 publication really started most of the modern considerations about it; notably, however, even after 150 years, it is still properly referred to as only the ”Theory of Evolution” since it still is, thus, awaiting some sort of scientific proofs. 

All of the supposed proofs, nonetheless, have been disproven by scientists who were or are not in agreement with evolutionism or, at least, various parts thereof.  E. g., the missing links are all yet missing; and, such tremendously odd things as so-called living fossils are always, inherently and unmistakably, fundamental integral contradictions plainly spoken of by evolutionists.   Q. E. D. 

But, the true believers, ultimately, make always the same rather lame retort: What, if rejected totally, would you then replace evolutionism with?  The answer (or at least one answer) is IDT.