evolution is not proven fact, it is an unconfirmed hypothesis

Unfortunately, 75% of people today believe in evolution, more specifically macro-evolution. But believe me when I say that it is not because of the evidence. You will understand this as you read. But anyway Macro-evolution is the belief that one single organism reproduced and slowly developed into million of species in a process that took millions and millions of years. For example, it is believed that in the space of 2 million years, a dog can develop into a horse. A fish can develop into a bird. Now before I dive into your arguments, I am going to attack the overall concept of macro-evolution from these Scientific standpoints: The details of the fossil record, structural homology, molecular biology, and mutualism. The Details Of The Fossil Record: Evidence Against Macro-Evolution If Macro-evolution really happened, where is the first place you would look? Well, the most obvious place would be the fossil record. After all, if dogs did eventually give rise to horses, then we should be able to find fossils of animals somewhere between a dog and a horse. These are called transitional forms because they represent a transition from one species and another. Unfortunately, very few of these were ever found. And even those were highly questionable. So instead of finding the transitional forms that paleontologists thought they would find, they found mostly gaps. The core of macro-evolution argues that species give rise to species in a slow, gradual process that takes years on top of years. But the fossil record reveals a very different story. This is the sudden emergence of entirely new species with no apparent immediate ancestors. Consider this for a moment. Macro-evolution attempts to explain the earth's past. But because we don't have anyone who lived 20 million years ago to tell us that macro-evolution happened, we have to look for data that either support or refute the idea. The first place to look for data would be the fossil record. What does it tell us? It says macro-evolution never happened. The transitional forms that would be necessary for one life form to change to another simply do not exist. If the STRONGEST piece of data to tells us that macro-evolution never happened, scientists simply should not believe in it. Structural Homology: More evidence against macro-evolution: Now to my next argument. Structural Homology is the study of similar structures in different species. Before I explain why this is evidence against macro-evolution, it is important to understand why it was originally believed to support macroevolution in the first place. Darwin supposed that if two species shared similarities in different parts of their bodies, then this could be evidence that there is a common ancestor. Consider this link that shows the structural homology of different species limbs. http://itc.gsw.edu... In this example, the limbs of humans and cats, and horses are actually surprisingly similar. Darwin supposed that this could be evidence that they had a common ancestor. After all, he supposed that by natural selection the original ancestor could over big blocks of time could, give rise to many similar species. This would be exactly like people supposing that you and your brother grandson's are related because of your striking similarities. In Darwin's time, this would have been an excellent argument. How could such similar species not have a common ancestor? Well unfortunately for macro-evolutionists we know that this happens because of Mendelian genetics. You see, if structural homology was the result of common ancestry, it would show up in genetic codes in the organisms that possess similar structures. Take for example, the link I showed you of the structural homology of a human, horse, cat, bat, bird, and whales limbs. If all of these came from a common ancestor, then the corresponding parts of their DNA should be similar. Is this the case? NO! That's not what we are dealing with. Dr. Michael Denton points out that the apparent homologous structures in different species are specified by quite different genes. He is right in this case because as scientists have studied genetics, they find that this is indeed fact. Because of this, there is absolutely no way that these could have been inherited by a common ancestor. If there was a common ancestor, then the genes and the DNA would be somewhat similar. We know that this isn't even remotely close to the truth. Molecular Biology: Strong evidence against macro-evolution Aside from DNA, the most important molecule in the chemistry of life is a protein. All life forms have them and without them, there would be no life at all. The protein I will go into is called Cytochrome C which takes part in cellular metabolism. It is made up of a series of amino acid sequences which varies from species to species as seen below. https://docs.google.com... Notice in the chart each of the proteins are very similar which isn't a surprise because the protein is the same in each case. The proteins between the horse and kangaroo are nearly identical. But because of the one difference, the cytochrome C for a kangaroo will not work at all in a horse and vice versa. Proteins are made in cells according to the instructions of DNA. Thus, you are looking at the differences between specific parts of these organisms genetic code, that is the part that determines the make-up of the protein. If macro-evolution is true, then this chart should indicate how "closely related" the two species are. If they are distantly related however, that should reflect in the chart I just showed you. Now, let's compare the Cytochrome C amino acid sequence in several different species. Let's start with the horse and kangaroo. Percent difference: 1/11 x 100= 9.1% difference When we compare the Cytochrome C amino acid sequence between a horse and the yeast however, there are 4 differences. 4/11 x 100= 36.4% difference This data tells us that the kangaroo is more closely related to the horse than the yeast which makes sense from a macro-evolution point of view because according to them "complex life forms evolved from simple ones." Well, if this were true, than it should reflect in the next chart I show you. Check out the bacterium Rhodosprillum Cytochrome C amino acid sequence and see the percent difference it has from other species. https://docs.google.com... The bacterium is the simplest life form on earth. Of the organisms listed, the yeast is the next simplest life form. If it is true that complex life forms evolved from simple ones, then the yeast should be closely related to the bacterium. That is not the case however. Of the organisms listed on the chart, the yeast actually has a 69% difference from the bacterium while the other much more complex organisms like the horse has a 64% difference. Instead of the yeast being more closely related to the LEAST complex organisms, it is actually more closely related to the MOST complex organisms. The data in the chart shows absolutely none of the evolutionary relationships that should exist if macro-evolution really happened. Mutualsim: The nail in the coffin for Macro-evolution: Today there is something called mutualism which is a close relationship between two species where both benefit. An example of this is between the oriental sweetlips and the blue streak wrasse. The Oriental sweetlips is one of the few fish that has teeth. However it must get them cleaned otherwise they would rot and fall out. So, the blue streak wrasse cleans the oriental sweetlips teeth by eating all of the plaque on it. This gives the blue streak wrasse a good meal, and at the same time, the oriental sweetlips gets its teeth cleaned, thus causing both to benefit. Macro-Evolution states that one life form came into existence from dead matter. This process by itself is impossible but that is aside the point. For now let's just say it happened. That life form reproduced creating every species of animals we see today. In order for macro-evolution to be true, this case of mutualism would have to have come across by chance. At some point in time evolutionists would say that the sweetlips probably had no teeth but in a number of generations, teeth began to form. In order for these teeth not to rot, the sweetlips would have to develop the instinct to seek out a fish to clean it's teeth. This instinct would have to develop at EXACTLY THE SAME TIME THE TEETH EVOLVED. But that's not enough. At the exact time these instincts evolved, the blue streak wrasse would have to INDEPENDENTLY decide to swim in the sweetlips mouth without the fear of being eaten. Remember, if these don't happen at the exact same time, the process won't work. That is just one of millions of examples of mutualism. There are just too many of these happy coincidences for evolution to be possible. Conclusion: Today there is just too much data that Macro-evolutionists completely ignore. There are a few reasons so many people believe in it today. One, if Macro-evolution is not true than you have to accept that there is a God in the equation. After all, there really isn't any other explanation other than evolution of how life originated. Accepting that evolution is false means accepting that God is real and accepting that God is real makes a claim on your life. Another reason so many people believe in evolution is because for the most part it is not allowed to be taught in high school classrooms and college classrooms. Thus, because the idea of evolution is so universal, it is the only thing that students have to base their beliefs on. There aren't many people that believe in God these days so their only option is to believe in the scientific belief of evolution. But those people have to understand one thing. Science will fail us, everything in this life will.