Evolution (speciation) is false

To begin my rebuttal, I will give a very brief analytical outline of your prior argument: 1. We know for certain evolution is real 2. A theory has been well tested and explains a part of the natural world 3. Natural selection is the means by which evolution occurs 4. Inheritance and genetics play a large role in evolution 5. Applications today of evolution In your second paragraph, you said that "there's so much [evidence] it's hard to know where to start." Yet throughout your entire argument, you gave not one example of evidence. Generalizations are not evidence. Evidence comes in specific terms. In reference to your explanations of gravity, I completely agree with you when you say that it is well tested and verified. However, I am sorry to say that it is irrelevant in proving that evolution has been tested. When you say that evolution was already accepted by many scientists before Darwin, on what basis was the hypothesis accepted? And even tested? How many scientists actually even accepted evolution? It sounds like you are arguing that since many scientists believe it, it must be true. I think it is better to say that because many scientists believe it, we should consider it and listen. But that doesn't automatically verify it. How exactly do we know that offspring are usually born with "mostly random" variations (What is "mostly" random supposed to mean?)? Are the variations purposeful? What force would drive those variations? How do we know those offspring would survive? Or even reproduce? How do we know those variations would be helpful? We don't have any transitional fossils, and we sure haven't observed this. How exactly is this scientific or testable? The hypothetical explanation does sound great and all, but that is all it is. It is hypothetical and actually philosophical. See, by observing that, say, a rabbit has a certain fur color that helps it survive, then assuming that therefore it must have changed over a long period of time to get to that point, is a philosophical viewpoint and not science because there is no evidence to support that hypothesis. There are other "stories" that perfectly fit how things are the way they are. For example, evolutionists see a green bug on a green tree and say that therefore it must have changed for a long time to adapt to the color of the tree, and creationists see that same green bug on the green tree and say that God placed that green bug on the green tree because it would be ridiculous to put a red bug on the tree. Both stories fit, but that is all they are. Stories. Plausible explanations, but not necessarily a good explanation, until they are backed up with evidence. In order to be considered a scientific hypothesis, it has to be falsifiable. It is also important to just think through the basic concept of speciation logically. I will use the well-known example of a cow turning into a whale. The question has to be raised: What properties exactly would have to be changed for a land-dwelling creature to turn into a sea-dwelling creature? Keep in mind that all of these changes would have to "randomly" occur in a perfect manner, or else any of the transitional forms will die off without successfully reproducing because their organs and extremities are only half developed. Specifically how many changes are required to change from a creature that lives on land only into a mammal that spends its entire life in the ocean? A very modest calculation that a biologist once made was that it would take more than 50,000 morphological changes. If we only have two members from that sequence, where are the other 49, 998 members from that sequence? The same applies to all of the other creatures evolutionists say changed into completely other species. Let us just think of a few of the major changes that would have to take place RANDOMLY: lactation, feeding, breathing, skin, membrane over eyes, reproduction, hearing, etc. To be honest, we have not found any significant transitional fossils to show that these changes took place. Now, let's go back to the very start of evolution, when the first unicellular organisms came into existence. It started when it rained on the molten rocks of the Earth for millions and millions of years. Where did all that water come from? How is it possible to rain continuously for that long? Why aren't we completely submerged in water? How many gallons would that be? How could all of that water have disappeared? The next part of the story is that all of that water became a primordial soup, as evolutionists often like to call it. Where did those elements come from? Oh, right. The Big Bang, where the entire universe exploded into existence from nothing. Literally nothing. But moving on, let's assume that all of those elements are there. There was a flash of lightning, and a lot of time, and the elements meshed together in exactly the right way forming proteins and other components needed for life. The perfect, constantly brought up, experiment that illustrates this process, is the Urey-Miller experiment. "Their apparatus [...] included a chamber containing the gases Oparin assumed were present in the young Earth"s atmosphere. As the gases circulated in the chamber, electric sparks, substituting for lighting, supplied energy to drive chemical reactions. The Miller-Urey experiment, and other variations that have followed, produced a variety of organic compounds, including amino acids." However, in this well known experiment that took place in 1953, were identified more than a few flaws that compromised the reliability of its results. From Scott M. Huse, Ph.D., "1. The concentrations of methane and ammonia were carefully selected to ensure the production of organic molecules. There is no evidence to suggest the Earth"s atmosphere was so characterized. 2. There is no evidence to indicate the Earth"s early atmosphere was reducing. There is, however, considerable evidence to suggest the Earth had an oxidizing atmosphere during most, if not all, of its history. 3. A methane-ammonia-reducing atmosphere would be fatal to life-forms. 4. The simulation of lightning by mild spark discharges is unrealistic. Actual lightning would have destroyed any organics that may have been present. 5. The molecules produced in the Miller-Urey apparatus would react detrimentally to life forms that were trying to evolve. Chemically, they would destroy all hope of producing life." Aside from those points, there were two standout problems with how the experiment was conducted. The first is that Urey and Miller made it so that there was no oxygen in the flask, but without oxygen they would not have been able to have ammonia, one of the key components to their experiment. This is true because UV rays destroy ammonia, yet the only thing that blocks the UV rays is the ozone layer, which is comprised of oxygen. The second point is that the experiment did not produce a variety of organic compounds like everyone lets on. The outcome was eighty-five percent tar, thirteen percent carboxylic acid (both are toxic to life), and only two percent amino acids. On top of that, they only produced two of the twenty types of amino acids actually needed for life. During their experiment, once the amino acids formed, Urey and Miller had to instantly move them to another flask because they would have been destroyed by the tar and acid. It goes without saying why this is unrealistic. The most ironic part about the entire situation is that it just proves that even in a laboratory run by brilliant scientists life cannot be created from nothing. Thus, it seems absurd to try to assume what happened after life began without properly knowing how it began. So, therefore, let me just say that, like you so brilliantly stated in your last argument, "You have presented no evidence or proof otherwise, rather an opinionated and useless theory."