Evolution is false.

1.GlueI think it's worth noting that the originator of this argument(or at least what I found) is questionably a troll [1]This is a strange argument because it talks about decay. Radioactive dating dates the universe as being very old. The typical reply is that the decay rates have changed, yet you would be throwing out your whole argument if you coincide to this. So if the decay rates are constant and this argument is valid, then what about the other decay rates of elements? Glue covers a range of chemicals so what exactly is the short-lived molecule?2. Law of large numbersThis is completely irrelevant to evolution, since the LOLN deals with probability and trials NOT biological functions." Definition of 'Law Of Large Numbers' In statistical terms, a rule that assumes that as the number of samples increases, the average of these samples is likely to reach the mean of the whole population. When relating this concept to finance, it suggests that as a company grows, its chances of sustaining a large percentage in growth diminish. This is because as a company continues to expand, it must grow more and more just to maintain a constant percentage of growth." [2]3. FlagellumHow do you explain the self-assembly of the molecules that compose the flagella? Which doesn't do so in an irreducibly complex way. [3][4]From source [3]"How does the flagellum assemble? The bacterial flagellum may look like an outboard motor, but there is at least one profound difference: the flagellum assembles spontaneously, without the help of any conscious agent. The self-assembly of such a complex machine almost defies the imagination . As I showed with an earlier blog on the self-assembly of viruses (much simpler contraptions by comparison), all such phenomena seem astonishing and counterintuitive."We do have models of flagella evolution [5] Irreducible complexity makes a list of false assumptions about evolution It assumes evolution only furthers by the adding of parts and never by the removal of parts. Some species of bats, spiders and deep-water fish lack functioning eyes. Because it costs too much to grow eyes for little or no benefit. It assumes systems never change function. Ken Miller has taken Behe's mousetrap example to show that a missing trigger can be used as a tie clip, the spring can still be used as a key chain, and base can be used as a paperweight. It assumes parts that begin as helpful cannot eventually become required. Systems in nature can easily become irreducible complex. Such as natural bridges. A natural bridge is irreducible complex; if any of its parts are removed the whole bridge would fail. However these do come to be by natural means, simply by softer rock being washed out from under harder rock. Biological systems are different, but this shows irreducible complex systems can be formed naturally. 4. Mates Talk.Origins rebuts this claim [6]. This objection falsely assumes that speciation must happen suddenly when one individual gives rise to an individual of another species. In fact, populations, not individuals, evolve, and most speciation occurs gradually. In one common mode of speciation ("allopatric" speciation), two populations of the same species are split apart geographically. Small changes accumulate in both populations, causing them to be more and more different from each other. Eventually, the differences are great enough that the two populations cannot interbreed when they do get together (Otte and Endler 1989). It is also possible for speciation to occur without the geographical separation (sympatric speciation; see Diekmann and Doebeli 1999; Kondrashov and Kondrashov 1999; Otte and Endler 1989), but the process is still gradual. Sometimes new species can form suddenly, but this occurs with species that are asexual or hermaphroditic and do not need to find mates. Creationwiki's comments in their rebuttal to the list of creationist claims says this "Talk Origins is correct on this point."[7] 5. Thermodynamics The earth isn't an isolated system because of the sun. So the argument is moot. Life isn't isolated. It takes energy to function and grow. How can the law prohibit evolution, but allow reproduction. Reproduction produces an ordered copy of an organism. 6. Chromosomes We actually do see this. When we look at chromosomes most have been rearranged and fused over and over again. It's called synteny [8] [1] http://youtube.com...[2] http://www.investopedia.com...[3] http://biologos.org...[4] http://www.aip.org...[5] Matzke, N. J., 2003. Evolution in (brownian) space: a model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum. http://www.talkdesign.org... [6] http://www.talkorigins.org... [7] http://creationwiki.org... [8] List of Syntenic gene sets http://genomevolution.org...