The usual arguments #1: Evolution has not been proven

1) The appearance of lifeAbiogenesis explains the appearance of life from non-life pretty well. There is still not hard evidence to support it, but that's because it's very difficult to provide such evidence and the idea of abiogenesis is still relatively new. Even if it wasn't proven yet, everything we know suggests abiogenesis does occur, but the way in which in does is still unknown. There are many theories on how abiogenesis could take place, but there's no debate on whether or not it can take place. The Miller-Urey experiment works for my argument, not against it. Amino acids are not life, but they are present in all living organism, so in order for life to appear, amino acids were necessary. Their experiment doesn't prove the need of a Creator. They recreated the early conditions of Earth. Just because something can be recreated it doesn't mean it requires a creator. If a painter recreates a tree in a painting, the tree doesn't demand a creator. However, the experiment proves that the Earth had the proper conditions for amino acids to develop. Now, keep in mind that the first form of life were unicellular organism, without a nucleus, called prokaryotes. Because they are so simple, they are very likely to form in an environment that allows amino acids to form.Now, let's take a look at the evolution timeline. It took 1.6 billion years for prokaryotes to turn into eukaryotes. 1.6 billion years were needed for cells to develop a nucleus. I think the infinite monkey theorem is perfect for what I am trying to prove. A monkey with a typewriter and an infinite amount of time will write the complete works of Shakespeare. If given enough time, species will mutate into more complex species. In 1.6 billion years, cells developed a nucleus. The reason why macro evolution seems unreasonable is because people usually think macro evolution takes place in 100 or 1000 years. The time periods it take macro evolution to take place are huge, and that makes it more reasonable.Even after complex cells, it took 1 billion years for this cells to form multicellular organism.After multicellular organism things speed up, but it still take a few hundred million years for every new class of animals to appear.Also, note after that amphibians appeared, fish didn't stop evolving. The appearance of a new species doesn't stop the constant mutations of the old one, that's why 10 species could have evolved from a single, older species. This also explains biodiversity.2)Macro evolution proofWhen talking about the flu virus, that is micro evolution. HIV mutated from SIV, that is macro evolution, The flu virus changes every year, but it still infect humans in the same way every year. HIV is a different "kind" of virus, it isn't just a change in characteristics, it infect a different species, so it proves macro evolution. " but you neglected the fact that they are still viruses. " - Yes, but they are different "kinds" of viruses. If there was conclusive evidence that humans evolved from apes, would you say it doesn't prove anything, because we are still mammals? Macro evolution happens at the level of species, not just classes. Birds evolved from reptiles, but some birds also evolved from other birds. HIV is a virus that evolved from another virus. Because it's a different virus rather than a variation of the first, we are talking about macro evolution."Dog breeders, for example, have had a tremendous time trying to create new breeds of dogs"This prove micro evolution and has no relevance in this debate, Dog breeders never tried to make a new species of dogs. In addition, this would be impossible. Dogs have been domesticated for only 33.000 years. This is not nearly enough time for macro evolution to occur. The main reason why we don't witness macro evolution is because we haven't been here long enough. 200.000 years is not enough for it to occur.The fly experiment:There have been numerous experiments involving fruit flies, so I'm not sure which one you are talking about. However, there is an experiment that proves macro evolution through sexual isolation. Two species can be nearly identical, for example the Asian Elephant and the African Elephant, but as long as they can't mate, they are considered different species. species = the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species."Kilias, et al. (1980) exposed D. melanogaster populations to different temperature and humidity regimes for several years. They performed mating tests to check for reproductive isolation. They found some sterility in crosses among populations raised under different conditions. They also showed some positive assortative mating. These things were not observed in populations which were separated but raised under the same conditions. "The individuals that couldn't mate with individuals raised in different conditions were, by definition, members of another species. They might look almost the same and still be flies, if they can't mate, they are different species and therefore prove macro evolution. The beetle:Your argument here is that some organism are too complex to have evolved. This is one of the most common arguments against evolution and usually the human eye is the example. First of all, when talking about certain characteristics, like the chemicals and the heat resisting layer, we are talking about micro evolution. Micro evolution and natural selection( both proven ) can do the job. Slight variation after slight variation, the chemicals slowly became part of every beetle. Since most of them died because of the reaction, the ones with thicker layers survived, passed their genes. This is very easy to prove and also doesn't help your case against macro evolution. If there is a creator that take so much time to perfectly engineer something as insignificant as a beetle, then why wouldn't he give humans better hearing or smell? Why would a creator give dogs better hearing and smell? These can all be easily explained by natural selection and micro evolution: humans don't need better hearing or smell in order to survive, so they never developed it. Dogs need good hearing and smell to survive, so they developed it. Everything in nature works just fine, but as long as it can be explained by simple science, a creator is not at all necessary.Sources:http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.talkorigins.org...http://dictionary.reference.com...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...