A recent message left on a post said this
“Your statements summing up all too simply the vast amount of science that stands behind brilliant insights such as evolution frustrates me beyond rational words.” Well I don’t claim to be a science blog but I would like to address the validity of this statement when it claims vast amount of science standing behind evolution and if evolution really is a brilliant insight.
First let me point out that there has always been a group of highly distinguished scientists, with impressive credentials and no religious motivations, who have never conceded that evolution has been proved. This is an inconvenient truth for evolutionists who would like to dismiss their opponents as Bible-thumping hicks and claim that questioning evolution is tantamount to questioning the value or validity of science.
The first big problem with evolution is that
the fossil record increasingly does not support it, if viewed honestly, a fact that famous
Prof. Steven Jay Gould of Harvard has described as "the trade secret of paleontology." Evolutionary theory claims that there once existed a whole line of successive forms of the various organisms alive today. These supposedly changed by very small amounts with each generation as they evolved or changed into the present organisms. Fossil records should show these gradual changes, but they don’t. Instead, they show the emergence of new species out of nowhere, fully complete with all their characteristics and not changing over time. It is almost entirely devoid of forms that can plausibly be identified as intermediates between older and newer ones. This is popularly known as the "missing link" problem, and it the problem is seen across different species and time periods. This problem is getting worse, not better, as more fossils are discovered, and as the new fossils just resemble those already found and don’t fill in the gaps. In Darwin's day, it was easy to claim that the fossils were there but had not been discovered. Problem is, we now have hundreds of thousands of well-catalogued fossils, from all continents and geologic eras, and we still haven't found these intermediate forms. The quantity, quality, and range of the recovered fossils is impeccable. But the more we dig, the more we keep finding the same forms over and over again, never the intermediates. Darwin himself recognized this grave difficulty in his theory and devoted a whole chapter in The Origin of Species to it.
Darwin admitted the glaring lack of intermediate types in the fossil record to be "the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against [my] theory." It still is obvious but with new discoveries it no longer is the most serious.
The usual response of evolutionists at this stage in the argument is a theory they call punctuated equilibrium, Gould’s great contribution, which basically says that evolution occurs not gradually but in spurts. This would explain why there are gaps and not continuity in the fossil record. The problem with this theory, which is so complex (if you can’t make simple sense then confuse them), is in explains away the non-existence of small gradations, it still requires there to be large ones (the individual spurts) and these aren't in the record. Also, for punctuated equilibrium to have occurred, a precise set of conditions would have to be obtained throughout the entire past period represented in the fossils, and this is unlikely and
not science.
Another development that has undermined evolution is the use of computers in evolutionary biology. Computers have shown that the evolutionary trees that get drawn up in our kids biology books are in fact based on imaginary relations of observed similarity and difference that owe more to peoples tendency to perceive patterns than to the real biological data. Computers show that when the characteristics of different living things are encoded in numerical form and the computer is asked to sort them into The order of nucleotides in a DNA or RNA molecule, or the order of amino acids in a protein molecule.sequences based on their similarities and differences, the computer can find any number of ways of doing so that have just as much support in the data as those drawn up by humans to fit an evolutionary tree. The data say "no evolution" just as loudly as they say "evolution"; it’s just the pattern-craving human mind that gives prominence to the former way of viewing it. This is known as phenetic analysis. When the computer is constrained to push the data into an evolutionary tree, (this is called cladistic analysis) it tends to generate trees with all species as individual twigs and no species forming the crucial lower branches of the tree that evolution demands. As a result of this,
many biologists have in practice stopped using the idea of ancestors and descendants when classifying new species. When the British Museum of Natural History did this a few years ago, they started a small war in scientific circles.
Here is another problem true science gives to the theory of Evolution. It has to do with the order of nucleotides in a DNA or RNA molecule, or the order of amino acids in a protein molecule. Sequences which look logical based on the progression of one set of anatomical characteristics suddenly look illogical when attention is switched to another set. For example, the lungfish superficially seems to make a good intermediate between fish and amphibian, until one examines the rest of its internal organs, which are not intermediate in character, nor are the ways in which its eggs develop. And if different species have common ancestors, it would be reasonable to expect that similar structures in the different species be specified in similar ways in their Deoxyribonucleic acid: the chemical inside the nucleus of a cell that carries the genetic instructions for making living organisms.DNA and develop in similar ways in their embryos; this is frequently not so. So evolutionary relationships depend upon an arbitrary choice of which characteristics of the organisms in question are considered most important, and different relationships can be "proved" at will.
The classic cases printed in biology textbooks to show the evolution of present-day organisms from their supposed ancestors are in fact downright false. We read the same examples coming up again and again in textbook after textbook because there are only a few species for which there is even a remotely plausible fossil genealogy can found in the over 100,000 fossil species known to paleontology. The horse as an example you will find that several of the standard claims about the pattern of equine evolution, such as the gradual reduction of the side toes, are extremely questionable and that the morphological distance covered from the earliest horse to the present horses is so small, compared with the vast changes that evolution must encompass, that it is questionable and hardly fact but just speculation or not science. In fact when we try to talk about observable science evolutionists tell us we cannot see evolution taking place because it happens too slowly. A human generation takes about 20 years from birth to parenthood. They say it took tens of thousands of generations to form man from a common ancestor with the ape, from populations of only hundreds or thousands. However we do not have these problems with bacteria. A new generation of bacteria grows in as short as 12 minutes or up to 24 hours or more, depending on the type of bacteria and the environment, but typically 20 minutes to a few hours. There is much variation in bacteria. There are many mutations (in fact, evolutionists say that smaller organisms have a faster mutation rate than larger ones) but
they never turn into anything new they always stay bacteria. Fruit flies are much more complex than already fantastically complex single-cell bacteria. Scientists like to study them because a generation (from egg to adult) takes only 9 days. In the lab, fruit flies are studied under every conceivable condition. There is much variation in fruit flies. There are many mutations.
But again they never turn into anything new, they always remain fruit flies. Many years of study of countless generations of bacteria and fruit flies all over the world shows that
evolution is not happening today. The truth is this the emergence of one species from another has never been directly observed by science.
Another huge problem with evolution that continues to get bigger as we gain more knowledge is that it remains incapable of explaining how anything could evolve that doesn't make biological sense when incomplete. The wings of birds are the classic example: what good is half of one? Other examples are endless. This is a problem that evolutionary theory has promised a solution to for a long time and has not and cannot give us. Even more disturbing than visible examples like wings are the complex chemical reactions and molecular structures that living things are made of. As we discover more we find that many of the micro-processes in a cell make sense either complete or not at all.
There are no plausible accounts of how they could have evolved from other simpler processes because as one hypothesizes backwards down the chain of complexity, one comes to a point at which the process just won’t work if it gets any simpler. At this stage, the process could not have evolved from anything else because there is nothing simpler for it to have evolved from. And at this stage, the process is still far too complex to have been thrown together by any known non-living chemical event. At one time, knowledge of the complex processes of living things was limited enough, and hopes for the discovery of intermediate processes that they could have evolved from wide-open enough, that evolutionists could ignore this problem. But as biological knowledge has progressed, evolution theory has to confront more inconvenient facts. And we find that research is consistently making the problem for evolution worse, not better.
Another inconvenient scientific fact for the evolution myth that has happened since evolution was first proposed is that biology has achieved a precise cataloging of the thousands of different Organic compounds made of amino acids arranged in a linear chain, joined together by peptide bonds between the carboxyl and amino groups of the adjacent amino acid residues, and proteins that make up organisms. It was hoped that a thorough cross-species comparison of these would reveal the kinds of relationships of graded similarity that evolution implies. But it has not. Instead, it has given the same picture of distinct species with no links or evolutionary tree. And analysis of the closeness and distance between different species reveals results that refute evolution. According to the order of nucleotides in a DNA or RNA molecule, or the order of amino acids in a protein molecule sequence when it comes to Protein Structure and Function, man is as close to a lamprey as we are fish! This problem repeats itself with other characteristics of organisms that have been brought within the scope of evolutionary comparison since Darwin’s day.
As if this is not enough well here is another problem for the evolution theory that has increased with increasing biological knowledge, the question of how life initially emerged from non life. As recently as the early 50's, it was still possible to hope that discoveries would reveal the existence of some intermediate between single-celled organisms and complex lifeless molecules. The existence of these(certain kinds of viruses were candidates for the role) would imply the possibility of an evolutionary transition from dead chemicals to intermediates to life. But the discovery of Deoxyribonucleic acid: the chemical inside the nucleus of a cell that carries the genetic instructions for making living organisms.DNA in 1953 killed this hypothesis (desperate stab in the dark) in its simplest form, and subsequent discoveries have only made the matter worse. Vast numbers of microorganisms are now known, as are vast numbers of complex molecules, but nothing can be found in between.
The simplest possible cell imaginable within the limits of biology, let alone the simplest actually existing cell, is far too complex to have been thrown together by any known non-living chemical event. So even if evolution has an explanation of how species evolve from one to another, it has no way to "get the ball rolling" by producing the first species from non life.
Evolution plain and simple is not science. 
Cells are made of proteins, and everything that goes on in a creature involves proteins interacting with each other. Proteins are generally 50 to 2000 amino acids long; a typical one has about 300 amino acids. Ribosomes are molecular machines that build proteins in all cells, using messenger RNA as the template. Here is an overview of how a bacterial ribosome "translates" RNA into protein. Every protein in bacteria is made this way. (yea that just happened on it's own)Questioning whether evolution is a science at all is not a stretch at all, because its assertions are not potentially falsifiable. A true science, like physics, makes claims that can be tested and thus potentially falsified; this vulnerability is what makes it worthy of belief when despite this, the falsification does not happen. But evolution does not make claims of this kind because it can’t. One of the things that makes for good science is that it is based on repeatable experiments. The data used to support evolution are neither experiments nor repeatable, nor can they be, since the origin of species on earth was a unique event. This doesn’t necessarily make evolution nonsense, but it strongly suggests it doesn’t have the right to demand a place at the science table with physics, chemistry, or molecular biology. In fact on the strength of its being straightforwardly a science as I said before
Evolution is not science and science proves it to be highly unlikely.
Anyone who doubts that the bulk of the scientific community could be wrong about a fundamental question like this should consider the case of Newtonian physics, which was thought to be unshakable until Einstein disproved it. (Lest anybody quibble about the approximate validity of Newtonian physics at non-relativistic speeds, may I point out that Newtonian physics was formerly thought to be valid at all speeds, throughout the universe, and this Einstein refuted.) Evolution may not a fraud being perpetrated upon the public, but it is a theory that has far too many problems to be treated as something that everyone is obliged to believe in on pain of being classified as a fool. As the credibility of evolution continues to wane with additional developments in biology the absolute of solving this intellectual puzzle should be free for debate. I am quite happy to change my position if new facts come out, and I urge my readers that this is the only rational view to have.
If I were to place seven sticks on the ground parallel to each other on a trail in the woods and you came upon them what conclusion would a rational thinking person have. They would easily deduce that someone put them there. If I show you a car or a wrist watch and ask you how it came to be you would of course say that it was manufactured or created. But if I show you the incredible complexity of a cell and it’s workings and the amazing complexity of a human eye and the even more complex makings of a entire human you deduce it was random chance.
Still not convinced? Try this one take special note of DNA structure and folding (if it folds wrong it will not function as it should. http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html
A protein is not just a long string of amino acids strung together from the DNA pattern. it folds itself together into a complex 3D structure that is important for it's function. Would we say this origami bird could make it's self? Yet the most simple building block of all infinitely complex life is far more complex and we think it is random chance.
Some one wrote in response to something I wrote. "It's EXACTLY the same crap the 911 terrorist were talking about, but with a SLIGHTLY different accent." I have heard people say that "All religions are basically the same and teach the same things and point to the same place". I have to disagree completely with this point of view. And I'll show you the major differences.
