The scientific evidence for Natural Selection is overwhelming.

Mutation and natural selection are woefully inadequate to have evolved all the life on earth because: (1) They don"t create anything new. Natural selection can only select from preexisting information that is already there. No new information is being added, no new biological machines are being made. This is why all we get from natural selection is variation within a kind, but such variations always run into the limits of variations, and that"s what we have with Lenski"s E-coli and all other bacteria experiments. They never become a new species. After thousands of generations we haven"t produced anything else but more bacteria " some bigger, smaller, or more adapted to their environments, but they don"t stop being bacteria. After "over 20 years of [mutation], 7,000 flasks and 45,000 generations," all Lenski produced was more bacteria. This in itself shows that macroevolution isn"t happening. Not only were they bacteria still bacteria, but they were still the same kind of bacteria, they didn"t stop being E-coli not even after what Pro calls the equivalent of "a million years to the time of Homo erectus." If they fail to become anything new under the ideal conditions of the lab, they certainly won"t fare better in the confusion of the wild. It"s unscientific and unreasonable to use the small changes that are observable, to ASSUME that much larger changes which are NOT observable actually happen. Thing is, the evolutionary opportunities for humans would be far less because of the smaller population sizes limiting the number of possible mutations, as well as the larger, more complex genome, with built in error protection systems against mutations. Bacteria are far better equipped than humans to survive in more diverse environments, so if they don"t evolve into anything new, how could we have done so from a common ancestor? What Lenski attempted to do was tried with a 35-year experiment breeding fruit flies, and in the end, all they had at the end was more fruit flies. The scientists admitted: "Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles." "The probability of fixation in wild populations should be even lower than its likelihood in these experiments." --Burke, Molly K., Joseph P. Dunham, Parvin Shahrestani, Kevin R. Thornton, Michael R. Rose, Anthony D. Long. 30 September 2010. Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila. Nature, Vol. 467, pp. 587-590. In regard to Lenski"s experiment, I"d like to ask how they know that that the genes for consuming citrate were not already recessive traits in the bacteria? Scientific evidence suggests that E-coli was already capable of utilizing citrate under anaerobic conditions, so did Lenski produce anything new? (Pos, K.M., Dimroth, P. and Bott, M., The Escherichia coli Citrate Carrier CitT: a Member of a Novel Eubacterial Transporter Family Related to the 2-Oxoglutarate/Malate Translocator from Spinach Chloroplasts, J. Bacteriol. 180(16):4160"4165, 1998; www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=107412) (2) DNA has the ability to repair damage to itself which preserves the kind of organism it is coded for. (Scientific American, "Inducible Repair of DNA," by Paul Howard-Flanders, November 1981, p. 72) Even cells have repair mechanisms which minimize the accumulation of mutations in order to maintain the form of the organism within strict boundaries of variation. These mechanisms include: (1) a proofreading system that catches almost all errors. In the case of DNA, the error that isn"t caught turns out to be one in every 10 billion. Not even the world"s best typist can do 10 billion letters without more than one mistake. (2) base excision repair, (3) a mismatch repair system to back up the proofreading system, (4) recombination repair, (5) photoreactivation, (6) removal of methyl or ethyl groups by O6 - methylguanine methyltransferase, (7) nucleotide excision repair, (8) double-strand DNA break repair. (Robert F. Weaver, 2008. Molecular Biology, Fourth Edition. McGraw-Hill, New York. pp. 660-680) This is one of the reasons why attempts at evolving bacteria, fruit flies and so forth always run into the limits of variation. The Encyclopedia Americana says: "The fact that most mutations are damaging to the organism seems hard to reconcile with the view that mutation is the source of raw materials for evolution. Indeed, mutants illustrated in biology textbooks are a collection of freaks and monstrosities and mutation seems to be a destructive rather than a constructive process." (1977, Vol. 10, p. 742) Mutations are harmful, leading to disease and death, so if it were not for these repair mechanisms life would be very short or wouldn"t get started at all. This means that the original simple forms of life would still have a complex repair system, but the same system that removes the harmful mutations also removes the ones evolutionists claim are needed to build new parts. "Consider a step-by-step list of [genetic] instructions. A mutation is a change in one of the lines of instructions. So instead of saying, "Take a 1/4-inch nut," a mutation might say, "Take a 3/8-inch nut." Or instead of "Place the round peg in the round hole," we might get "Place the round peg in the square hole" . . . What a mutation cannot do is change all the instructions in one step"say, [providing instructions] to build a fax machine instead of a radio" (Darwin's Black Box, 1996, p. 41). (3) Science makes predictions and carries out tests and experiments to observe those predictions coming true. But no one has ever observed any of the drastic changes macroevolution claims. Macroevolution is therefore just an unproven hypothesis, not an observable fact. I suggest creation by an intelligent designer as a better model because: (1) Intelligent minds are the only known source of meaningful information. DNA stores information in the form of a 4-letter digital code, so much information it would fill 384 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica. The data contained in DNA isn"t disorganized, nor simply orderly like salt crystals, but complex and specific for building molecular machines which outstrip even human inventions in their precision and capability. The information content of a single cell, "if written out, would fill a thousand 600-page books." (National Geographic, September 1976, p. 357) Since each cell has the information to produce all kinds of cells, when it came time, say, to make heart cells, how were the instructions to make all the other cells suppressed? Seemingly, acting like a contractor with a complete cabinet of blueprints for making a baby, a cell picked from its file cabinet a blueprint for making heart cells. Another cell picked out a different blueprint with instructions for producing nerve cells, yet another took a blueprint for making liver cells, and so on. Where did the instructions, the blueprints, come from if not from an intelligent mind? Many migratory animals are born with internal maps in order to travel to places they"ve never been before. They need not just a compass, but knowledge of the geography of their route and destination, as well as information on where they actually are. Why and how would nature program this information into them? This looks like intelligent intervention. "The pigeons' ability to fly home from a totally strange and distant location indicates that somehow the birds have both an internal compass and an internal map. A compass by itself would not be helpful, since the bird would not know if it were north, south, east or west of its home. The question of how a bird has a map of a location to which it has never been before (and was transferred to under such isolated conditions in the above test) and the sense of the direction it must take to return home remains a puzzle." (http://www.google.com...) Language also only comes from intelligent minds, and DNA does have a language. (2) Scientific experiments that attempt to reproduce aspects of evolution require sophisticated equipment, and intervention from highly trained experts to make these things work. These scientists are in effect playing God, playing the role of the intelligent agent, without whom the desired results would be impossible. Even in Lenski"s experiment, he was "Basically moving the 12 tribes from 12 old flasks to 12 new flasks, with care not to infect any of them by an outside source," but says who that blind, mindless forces of nature would have taken such care? (3) Evolution teaches that life evolved from simple beginnings, but a simple beginning has never been found. "Going back in time to the age of the oldest rocks," says Evolution From Space, "fossil residues of ancient life-forms discovered in the rocks do not reveal a simple beginning. Although we may care to think of fossil bacteria and fossil algae and microfungi as being simple compared to a dog or horse, the information standard remains enormously high. Most of the biochemical complexity of life was present already at the time the oldest surface rocks of the Earth were formed." (Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, 1981, p. 8) This is more consistent with intelligent design.