is evolution real

Like you, I look forward to an intelligent debate. First, Let me give some definitions for a few things. Evolution- the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. Natural Selection- the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. The theory of its action was first fully expounded by Charles Darwin and is now believed to be the main process that brings about evolution. Most evolutionists agree that all life forms on this earth evolved from one, Or a few simple life forms aided in a process called natural selection. It is through this that they believe why we have every single living species on this earth today. For example, A dog goes through tiny, Minor changes over and over again, It can evolve into a dog aided by natural selection. This they believe would take of course, Millions and millions of years. A horse could evolve to other species, And so on. Thus, We apparently get all living species we see today. if this theory were true, Then where would the first place we would look for evidence. Well the fossil record reveals species that lived millions of years ago, So it would seem that we should look there first. What we should be finding are intermediate links that demonstrate a slow, Gradual process of one species evolving to another. For example, If a dog evolved into a horse, Then it would only make sense that somewhere in the fossil record, We should discover fossils somewhere in between a dog and a horse. The same for other species. As one species evolves to another, Which happens over and over again, The fossil record should reveal intermediate links between each species. Unfortunately for evolutionists, Very few were ever found, And even those were highly questionable. Even famous scientists such as Dr. Schwartz admit that we aren't finding nearly enough fossil evidence as we are supposed to be finding if evolution really happened. To me, It doesn't make sense to believe in something that has no fossil evidence to back it up. What the fossil record shows is the sudden emergence of new species with no apparent ancestors. From an evolution point of view this wouldn't make any sense as it is a slow process that takes millions of years for new species to emerge. But the fossil record would show that it almost happened overnight. Critics will tell you that fossilization is rare so that is why we aren't finding many transitional forms. But as evolution takes 100's of millions of years to complete, That should give plenty of time for fossilization of all sorts. Now to another argument against evolution. Structural Homology is the study of similar structures in different species. Before I explain why this is evidence against macro-evolution, It is important to understand why it was originally believed to support evolution in the first place. Darwin supposed that if two species shared similarities in different parts of their bodies, Then this could be evidence that there is a common ancestor. Consider this link that shows the structural homology of different species limbs. . http://itc. Gsw. Edu/faculty/bcarter/histgeol/paleo2/homol1. Htm In this example, The limbs of humans and cats, And horses are actually surprisingly similar. Darwin supposed that this could be evidence that they had a common ancestor. After all, He supposed that by natural selection the original ancestor could over big blocks of time could, Give rise to many similar species. This would be exactly like people supposing that you and your brother grandson's are related because of your striking similarities. In Darwin's time, This would have been an excellent argument. How could such similar species not have a common ancestor? Well unfortunately for macro-evolutionists we know that this occurs simply because of genetics. You see, If structural homology was the result of common ancestry, It would show up in genetic codes in the organisms that possess similar structures. Take for example, The link I showed you of the structural homology of a human, Horse, Cat, Bat, Bird, And whales limbs. If all of these came from a common ancestor, Then the corresponding parts of their DNA should be similar. Is this the case? NO! That's not what we are dealing with. Dr. Michael Denton points out that the apparent homologous structures in different species are specified by quite different genes. He is right in this case because as scientists have studied genetics, They find that this is indeed fact. Because of this, There is impossible that these could have been inherited by a common ancestor. If there was a common ancestor, Then the genes and the DNA would be somewhat similar. That isn't even close to the truth. Aside from DNA, The most important molecule in the chemistry of life is a protein. All life forms have them and without them, There would be no life at all. The protein I will go into is called Cytochrome C which takes part in cellular metabolism. It is made up of a series of amino acid sequences which varies from species to species as seen below. . https://docs. Google. Com/document/d/1rN6jYckpQfu3VTflNWTyj2a8g38l6L78_rYlZHHkw3Y/edit Notice in the chart each of the proteins are very similar which isn't a surprise because the protein is the same in each case. The proteins between the horse and kangaroo are nearly identical. But because of the one difference, The cytochrome C for a kangaroo will not work at all in a horse and vice versa. Proteins are made in cells according to the instructions of DNA. Thus, You are looking at the differences between specific parts of these organisms genetic code, That is the part that determines the make-up of the protein. If macro-evolution is true, Then this chart should indicate how "closely related" the two species are. If they are distantly related however, That should reflect in the chart I just showed you. Now, Let's compare the Cytochrome C amino acid sequence in several different species. Let's start with the horse and kangaroo. Percent difference: 1/11 x 100= 9. 1% difference When we compare the Cytochrome C amino acid sequence between a horse and the yeast however, There are 4 differences. 4/11 x 100= 36. 4% difference Credit for charts: Exploring Creation with Biology This data tells us that the kangaroo is more closely related to the horse than the yeast which makes sense from a macro-evolution point of view because according to them "complex life forms evolved from simple ones. " Well, If this were true, Than it should reflect in the next chart I show you. Check out the bacterium Rhodosprillum Cytochrome C amino acid sequence and see the percent difference it has from other species. . https://docs. Google. Com/document/d/1V_4ApE6bQ7nMZE-hd16NOpJ8QBYIO8nZ2RLwlk02FtE/edit The bacterium is the simplest life form on earth. Of the organisms, The yeast is the next simplest life form. If it is true that complex life forms evolved from simple ones, Then the yeast should be closely related to the bacterium. That is not the case however. Of the organisms listed on the chart, The yeast actually has a 69% difference from the bacterium while the other much more complex organisms like the horse has a 64% difference. Instead of the yeast being more closely related to the LEAST complex organisms, It is actually more closely related to the MOST complex organisms. The data in the chart shows absolutely none of the evolutionary relationships that should exist if macro-evolution really happened. Mutualsim: The nail in the coffin for Macro-evolution: "Today there is something called mutualism which is a close relationship between two species where both benefit. An example of this is between the oriental sweetlips and the blue streak wrasse. The Oriental sweetlips is one of the few fish that has teeth. However it must get them cleaned otherwise they would rot and fall out. So, The blue streak wrasse cleans the oriental sweetlips teeth by eating all of the plaque on it. This gives the blue streak wrasse a good meal, And at the same time, The oriental sweetlips gets its teeth cleaned, Thus causing both to benefit. Macro-Evolution states that one life form came into existence from dead matter. This process by itself is impossible but that is aside the point. For now let's just say it happened. That life form reproduced creating every species of animals we see today. In order for macro-evolution to be true, This case of mutualism would have to have come across by chance. At some point in time evolutionists would say that the sweetlips probably had no teeth but in a number of generations, Teeth began to form. In order for these teeth not to rot, The sweetlips would have to develop the instinct to seek out a fish to clean it's teeth. This instinct would have to develop at EXACTLY THE SAME TIME THE TEETH EVOLVED. But that's not enough. At the exact time these instincts evolved, The blue streak wrasse would have to INDEPENDENTLY decide to swim in the sweetlips mouth without the fear of being eaten. Remember, If these don't happen at the exact same time, The process won't work. That is just one of millions of examples of mutualism. There are just too many of these happy coincidences for evolution to be possible. " Exploring Creation with Biology. They are exactly right. This just adds to the long list of chance coincidences for evolution to be possible. Source: Exploring Creation with Biology text book. Note: The charts I gave came directly out of this book. I did not make them up.