Evolution has impossibilities and contradicitions.

My main position on evolution, if I am to debate it, is that it contains fallacies recognized by scientists. Argument #1- Spontaneous generation. How does life arise from non-living matter? If one believes such an absurdity, I am left to question science, that we are studying metaphysical processes, which are unfalsifiable by science. We have no proof for spontaneous generation and it's comparable to me throwing airplane parts in the middle of nowhere and expecting over millions of years for it to turn into a Boeing 747. Evolutionists Green and Goldberger put it this way: There is one step [in evolution—BT] that far outweighs the others in enormity: the step from macromolecules to cells. All the other steps can be accounted for on theoretical grounds—if not correctly, at least elegantly. However, the macromolecule to cell transition is a jump of fantastic dimensions, which lies beyond the range of testable hypothesis. In this area, all is conjecture. The available facts do not provide a basis for postulation that cells arose on this planet. This is not to say that some paraphysical forces were not at work. We simply wish to point out that there is no scientific evidence (1967, pp. 406-407, emp. added). A lot of scientists like to point out that the conditions are no longer prevalent for life to spontaneously arise out of nothing and a common experiment proposed to do this was the "life in a testtube", where scientists created proteins under the assumed set of conditions life was supposed to arise on. I must say, that this did not prove life can come from nothing, for only proteins were generated. It's like Raw materials + Energy ⇒ Life molecules. "But there is a more fundamental problem with this scenario which can easily be overlooked. Amino acids, like all chemicals, are three-dimensional structures. The arrangement of the central carbon atom is tetrahedral (figure 2). In the diagram you will see two versions of this. Unless you are used to studying these sorts of arrangements, you will think they are the same; it would seem that you could just rotate one to get the other. This is not, in fact, the case. We compare them to our hands: right-handed and left-handed. A left-handed glove will not fit on a right hand, for example. Image Figure 2. Right and left-handed molecules Does this matter? The answer is a very loud "Yes!". In nature, we only have left-handed (levo) amino acids. (Glycine mentioned above is an exception; it does not have two forms – make a model and you will see why!). Miller's experiment gives a mixture of both forms but nature requires the levo form only. Again, does it matter? Functional proteins cannot contain more than traces of right handed (dextro) amino acids. Right-handed forms (dextro) can have very different, even fatal, effects in some circumstances. It is not a simple process to separate them and there is no natural system that can do so. In fact, L-amino acids have a tendency with age to undergo a chemical inversion to the D-form. This is called racemization. (This again gives a headache to the evolutionists: if amino acids could have been synthesised in a pure L-form, within a short time they would have racemized to give a 50:50 mixture of the two forms!). This racemization occurs in nature and can cause severe problems. For example, teeth and eye proteins racemize with age and so affect their health; Alzheimer's disease also may be caused by racemization of a protein. This structural distinction is a property that occurs widely in organic chemistry. For example, from non-protein substances we can observe the effect. Limonene occurs in these two forms: one gives the smell of lemons and the other of oranges! More seriously, the drug thalidomide was produced to aid pregnant mothers in order to combat "morning sickness". It was very effective but sadly serious deformities occurred in many babies. The reason was that the commercial drug was sold in a mixture of the handed forms. A similar problem arises with naturally occurring sugars: they are found in the dextroï¿½ form, not the levo one as in amino acids! So, we see in this first stage experiment that we have irrelevant conditions, a wrong atmosphere, low yields of chemicals in wrong proportions and a serious structural problem. If other compounds necessary to life were present (indeed other compounds at all), we would also have the problem of competitive reactions effectively lowering the yields even further."(http://www.truthinscience.org.uk...) And also as we can see, we need additional chemicals an products for life. I have thereby proven that the Miller experiment was a hype not to get too excited over. For we see it produced the wrong ype of atmosphere, with irrelevant conditions, etc. Read the rest of that webpage and you'll appreciate what I am talking about. Sir Fred Hoyle, Britain's eminent astronomer, addressed this matter when he stated: The question of the origin of life from inanimate matter was taken up again by physicists, chemists and biologists in the first few decades of the present century. The need for an empirical approach within the scope of modern science is well recognized, though a large part of the myth and mystery which pervaded religious and philosophical attitudes of earlier epochs is present even in the contemporary scientific answers which have been proposed.... "Mystical" spontaneous generation has been implicitly conceded for the initial formation of a biological system from inorganic matter.... It is doubtful that anything like the conditions which were simulated in the laboratory existed at all on a primitive Earth, or occurred for long enough times and over sufficiently extended regions of the Earth's surface to produce large enough local concentrations of the biochemicals required for the start of life. In accepting the "primeval soup theory" of the origin of life scientists have replaced religious mysteries which shrouded this question with equally mysterious scientific dogmas. The implied scientific dogmas are just as inaccessible to the empirical approach (1978, pp. 24,26, emp. added)." I will save my next arguments for the next debate round. Good luck!