is evolution real

I apologize for not citing sources. I will do a better job of it this round. Alright then, Let's cut to the chase. Details of the fossil record: Evidence against macro-evolution. You had some very good points in this section. However, They are not logically sound. Take your first point. You said that there are four famous transitional forms that demonstrate evolution. However, If evolution occurred by slow, Tiny changes that took millions of years to complete, Then this should reflect in the fossil record. We should be finding thousands and thousands of these transitional forms. Instead, We are finding millions and millions of complete forms rather than transitional. The conclusion is from this that evolution never occurred. If it did, Then it is essential that there would be transitional forms because of the fact that evolution is a very slow process. Here is a link: . https://creationtoday. Org/creationist-challenge/ Structural homology: More evidence against macro-evolution All you did here was repeat the reason why this was believed to be evidence for evolution in the first place. You said that because species share homologous features, This means that they are related and could have a common ancestor. However, If this were true, Then their corresponding parts of DNA should be similar. Unfortunately, For evolutionists this isn't true. Thus, There is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY that they could have come from a common ancestor. If it did, Then the corresponding DNA parts of the species homologous features would be somewhat similar, But this is absolutely not the case. Because evolution is all about common ancestry, Structural homology would seem to refute this idea. . https://sepetjian. Wordpress. Com/2011/10/07/refuting-homologous-evidence-for-evolution . http://www. Defendingthechristianfaith. Org/dna-and-structural-homology-studies-that-argue-against-evolution. Html Molecular Biology: Strong Evidence against Macro-evolution Aside from a link, Pro really hasn't given a case against this idea. If you are going to give me a link, Have a general argument that goes along with it. I am not having a debate with ncbi, I am having it with you. If you are telling me that evolution is true, Then why do the macro evolutionary relationships that are supposed to exist, Don't exist? It just doesn't make sense. Mutualism: The nail in the coffin Even if the species in mutualistic relationships evolved together, This still would not eliminate the chance portion of this. All of the instincts would have to evolve at EXACTLY THE SAME TIME. You can call it if you want to, "evolving together" I would like to give more arguments against evolution: What are the odds that a male and female of each species develop AT EXACTLY THE SAME TIME and EXACTLY THE SAME PLACE? If they don't, Then they cannot reproduce which means they eventually die without continuing their species. Another thing, What about organ development. To this argument, I give complete credit to creationtoday. Org. The argument follows: How did the heart, Lungs, Stomach, Veins, Blood, Kidneys, Etc. Develop in the first animal by slow, Minute steps and the animal survive while these changes were occurring? For example, Did the first animal develop 10 percent of complete veins, Then 20 percent, And on up to 100 percent, With veins throughout its entire body and brain? Then how did the heart slowly develop in the animal and get attached to the veins in the right spot? How did the blood enter the system? The blood could not enter before the veins were complete or it would spill out. Where did the blood come from? Did the blood have red corpuscles, White corpuscles, Platelets and plasma? At what point in this process of development did the heart start beating? Did the animal develop a partial stomach, Then a complete stomach? After the stomach was formed, How did the digestive juices enter the stomach? Where did the hydrochloric acid as part of the digestive juices come from? What about its kidney and bladder? The animal better not eat anything prior to this. How did the animal survive during these changes (and over thousands of years)? Of course, At the same time, The animal"s eyes must be fully developed so it can see its food, And its brain must be fully developed so the animal can control its body to get to the food. Like the heart, Brain, Veins and stomach, All of the organs and systems in the first animal"s body must be fully functional in the first moments of life. If you want to see more, Visit the first link I showed you. I apologize if I missed some of your arguments. I am just barely getting this one in before I forfeit.