Evolution

Contention 1: The nature of MutationsA well-known undisputed fact within the the study of genetics is that 90-99% of mutations are harmful and decrease the organism's ability to survive and adapt while the other 1-10% of mutations is neutral which does not increase nor decrease the odds. [1] The infinitesimally rare beneficial mutations can be ticked off on a single hand and they are so inexplicably rare that the scientists did not even bother including them as part of the percentage.This of course is a major obstacle to the evolutionist since one of the major mechanisms of evolutionary theory is that mutations cause immense diversity and cause better adapted organisms that natural selection can work on.With the nature of the mutations set right, there is no escape .... Evolution is false since mutations 90-99% of the time are harmful, exponentially decreases the organism's adaptibility and causes the organisms to de-evolve.I am not denying that there are beneficial mutations. But My major point is that the vast majority of modifications in organisms are harmful and do not conform to "the survival of the fittest" spirit of evolution. What one in a trillion odds of beneficial mutations are incomprehensibly outbalanced byt the negative mutations which are far more likely.Contention 2: DNA-error checking systemAnother major hurddle for evolution to overcome is the simple fact that Most if not all mutations are suppressed and fixed by the cell's DNA error-checking system. If a mutation happens whether beneficial or neutral or harmful, the DNA error-checking system is very quick to fix it. So how exactly would evolution and natural selection work if the vast majority of mutations are fixed on the spot and there is no diversity? If a miracle happens and a Beneficial mutation happens to pass all stages of the DNA-error checking system, it would be far outbalanced by the harmful mutations.The bottomline is that 99% of mutations are harmful and cause the organism to de-evolve. The other one percent are neutral and do not cause evolution or de-evolution. (http://evolutionfacts.com...) the benificial mutations are so incomprehensibly rare that they do not even include it as a percent. Whatever one in a trillion benificial mutations happen are all suppressed by the DNA Error-checking system. And whatever beneficial mutations happen to slip will be well outbalanced by the other negative mutations that will also slip causing a net negative mutations to slip causing the organism to de-evolve. You are depending on more chance and you have more faith than the creationist.Contention 3: Cambarian explosion One predicition that evolution makes is that there should be a large period of time between simple and complex organisms for evolution to happen and that we should be tripping over transitional fossils from simple to complex life. However the fossil record from simple to complex life is so airtight and there are no transistional fossils to document even a single transition. Moreover, the cambarian explosion from simple to complex life is so so short for any timely evolution [2] and adpataion to actually happen and for organisms to evolve overtime which puts the simple-to-complex evolution in the coffin.The lack of transitional fossils in this epoch in the fossil record is so startling that evolutionists could not even make up evidence since they have no idea what the transitional fossils would even look like if they existed. Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology at Harvard University, once wrote the following about the lack of transitional forms… “The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.” Paleontologist Mark Czarnecki, an evolutionist, once commented on the fact that complex life appears very suddenly in the fossil record… “A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth’s geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin’s hypothetical intermediate variants – instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God.”The sudden appearance of complex life in the fossil record is so undeniable that even Richard Dawkins has been forced to admit it… “It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and both reject this alternative.” This demolishes evolutionists' arguments that simple life evolved into complex life. There are no transitional fossils and the timespan of 23 million is absurd to suggest that all the species in the air, on land and in the sea evolved from simple bacteria that fast. Contention 4: Lack of transitional fossilsDarwin once wrote : " "Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? … But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?… But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties? This difficulty for a long time quite confounded me." (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, pp. 172-280) Scientists do not find transitional fossils nowhere near as close as Darwin predicted. Evolutionist Stephen M. Stanley of Johns Hopkins University has also commented on the stunning lack of transitional forms in the fossil record… “In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.” The following is how one evolutionist pessimistically assessed the lack of evidence for the evolution of humanity… “Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination.” Why did evolutionist Dr. Lyall Watson make the following statement?… “The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all of the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin!” Here is another prediciton of Darwin that is unfulfilled 2 centuries of digging later. There is no evidence for evolution. And what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidenceContention 5: Unreliable evidenceThe lack of evidence turned into frustration when Scientists could not find even ONE fossil to prove evolution so what they did they do? They made evidence up that was later discovered to be hoaxThe list of hoax evidence includes but not limited to:1- Lucy [3]2- Piltdown Man [4]3- Nebraska man [5]4- Peking Man [6]5- Neanderthals [7]6- Archaetopryx [8] Why would you ever trust a theory that is so unevidenced that they had to start making up evidence for?Contention 6: Coelcanth + Damselfly Living FossilThe final nail to the coffin in the sea of evidence against evolution are two cases that debunk that animals evolve over time.We have two cases which I will discuss closely.1- Coelcanth was a fish which is supposedly 350 million years old. They found this exact same fish recently ... with no change whatsoever. This demolishes the evolutionist claims that with enough the species will change into other species. The coelcanth was found to be the exact same with no changes whatsoever from its 350-million-year-old fossil [9]2- Damselfly poses the same threat to evolution as the coelcanth but this time the species found is the exact same as its 300-million year old fossil. This obviously puts to rest the notion of descent with modification as darwin put it since there obviously descent here but with no modification, no change and no evolution at all. [10] evolutionist Stephen J. Gould of Harvard University has admitted that the record shows that species do not change. The following is how he put it during a lecture at Hobart & William Smith College… “Every paleontologist knows that most species don’t change. That’s bothersome….brings terrible distress. ….They may get a little bigger or bumpier but they remain the same species and that’s not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don’t change, its not evolution so you don’t talk about it.”Species no change = evolution does not happen = evolution is false.