Evolution is correct while Creationism isn't

Argument 1A306;Obstacles of Evolution Setting the issue of abiogenists aside, evolution has to take leaps of faith to overcome multiple obstacles where no natural law is capable of overcoming. Let"s say that somehow a bunch of lifeless chemicals come together to form the simplest organism. The first problem is that this organism is useless for the progress of evolution unless it has the means of replicating itself. DNA and RNA are the only molecules capable of this so the question stands. Where did it come from? All organisms have DNA, a very complex molecule that is responsible for the production of all proteins that make up that organism. What is most intriguing about DNA is that it is a very sophisticated language system where the "words" have a completely different meaning than the nucleotides or "letters" much like how the meaning of words are different than the letters it is composed of. Evolution doesn"t provide any explanation on how such a coding system could evolve on its own; much less the mechanisms that take that code and make them into functional proteins. Have you ever seen a code or language not written by an intelligent mind? Not to mention that DNA and RNA are also very fragile molecules and will easily disintegrate in the environment without something to protect it. Take a look at forensic science, when DNA is collected at a crime scene, environmental factors such as moisture, heat or lack of heat.[1] Even after you get the issue of DNA and RNA solved there is another stumbling block for evolution. Why and how would organisms make the jump from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction where sexual reproduction has disadvantages such as only 50% of genes passed down meaning a 50% chance of losing a beneficial mutation? The organism would also have to expend energy to maintain sex organs in addition to the vulnerability of sexual displays.[2] The next issue at hand is how did cells adapted to individual survival "learn" to cooperate and specialize (including undergoing programmed cell death) to create complex plants and animals? In order for multi-cellular organisms to arise, unintelligent bacteria will have to somehow cooperate and soon take on specialized roles like the different cells in our body (ex. Red blood cells, brain cells). Argument 2: Evolution isn"t observable or testable There are two kinds of science, operational science and historical science. Observational science is the science that involves the experimental method, observation, experimentation, measurement, etc. Sciences like physics and chemistry fall under observational science and this is the kind of science that produces smart phones, jet craft, radar, automobiles, medicines, and the list goes on. On the other hand we have historical science which uses today"s observations and interpret them to try to find out what happened long ago. Dr. Stephan Jay Gould, Harvard professor of paleontology wrote: "Facts do not "speak for themselves"; they are read in the light of theory"[3] This is where evolution lies. The issue at hand is that we weren"t there when the world was created and we can"t know for sure what really happened. Creationists admit that we weren"t there when the world was created so we rely on God"s word since he was there when the world was created. Evolutionists often accuse creationists that we are the only ones who make this distinction between observational science and historical science but this is not true. For example, the prominent atheistic, evolutionist Harvard Professor, Dr E.O. Wilson said: "If a moving automobile were an organism, functional biology would explain how it is constructed and operates, while evolutionary biology would reconstruct its origin and history"how it came to be made and its journey thus far."[4] This is not an isolated quote. Prominent atheistic biologist Ernst Mayr wrote: "Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science"the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain."[5] The big problem is that microbes-to-microbiologist evolution has not been observed. The leader of evolutionary thinking Richard Dawkins even admits it when he said, "Evolution has been observed. It"s just that it hasn"t been observed while it"s happening."[6] Argument 3: Natural Selection/Mutation don"t drive evolution There is no doubt that natural selection is observed in nature. The concept is rather simple. The first issue is that natural selection is not a creative process. Natural selects the traits that are most fit to the environment and eliminates those that are not fit. Traits are being eliminated in organisms, the wrong direction for evolution. Evolutionists have looked to mutations to fix this problem, but the problem is that mutations do not create new information in the genome. Mutations or copying mistakes of DNA destroy functional genes not creating them. For example, a mutation in the p53 gene disables the production of a protein responsible for regulation cell growth. And when cells uncontrollably grow and reproduce, you get cancer [7]. Even beneficial mutations such as lactose intolerance are due to the destruction of functional genes. Lactose intolerance is caused when there is a mutation in the LCT gene that is responsible for producing the lactase enzyme which breaks down lactose[8]. Therefore mutations and natural selection do not produce the type of change necessary for evolution. The question I would like to ask my opponent is can you find an example of a mutation that results in the increase of information? This question is one that stumps even Richard Dawkins (video link below). Sources: 1: http://www.forensicmag.com... 2: http://creation.com... 3: Gould, S.J. (1941-2002), Ever Since Darwin, W.W. Norton, New York, NY, pp. 161-162, 1977 4: Wilson, E. O., From so Simply a Beginning, Norton, 2006, pg. 12. 5: Mayr, Ernst (1904"2005), Darwin"s Influence on Modern Thought, based on a lecture that Mayr delivered in Stockholm on receiving the Crafoord Prize from the Royal Swedish Academy of Science, 23 September 1999; published on ScientificAmerican.com, 24 November 2009. 6: http://www.pbs.org... 7: http://www.cancer.net... 8: http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...