Evolution theory is true

It's the first time anyone done this. Here is my argument: I believe in micro evolution which is genetic changes within a family. We do not see anything beyond this point. We don't observe one family evolving into another which would be called macro evolution. I believe fossils cannot be used as evidence for macro evolution (for the rest of the debate I'll refer macro evolution as just evolution) because one cannot prove the fossil had different offspring. My evidence against evolution is mainly two for simplicity: 1. Convergent evolution 2. The second law of thermodynamics Convergent evolution This is saying that animals that are completely not related have similar body structures. The reason I think this is evidence against evolution is because the chance of the body structure to evolve by chance and mutation (pretty much the same thing) is very slim. The chance of it evolving two or more separate times is as likely as rolling "12" on a pair of dice a million times in a row. Here are three examples. Flight Flight is a very complicated mechanism especially organic flight (flight by living creatures). There must be a specific ratio on many thousands of things like bone mass, muscle mass, heart rate, blood flow, etc. this mechanism to evolve by chance or mutation is very slim on its own. But according to the theory of evolution, not only did it evolved once, but four separate times. Insects, reptiles, birds, and mammals all have flight. We all seen insects fly and most birds, but bats, which are mammals, also fly and so does the pterosaur, which is a reptile. How can we believe that flight, which is by itself very complicated, can evolve four separate times? Fish with antifreeze The fish at the north and South Pole have a natural antifreeze that is very similar to each other. Yet the gene to create the antifreeze is completely different from the two fish. Are we to believe that evolution created fish with antifreeze which the antifreeze itself is very similar but come from very different gene sequences? Human and squid eyes Humans and squid share a very similar eye, but yet the theory of evolution says that these two families evolved from completly different branches of the evolution tree. Are we to believe that by chance and mutation the eye evolved twice? Then there's the second law of thermodynamics The law states that things tend towards disorder and become more simple. This is a law which we see everyday (your messy room for example). Nothing can perminemtely overcome it. Those who promote evolution will say that the law can be overcome by adding energy. Using the messy room analogy one can put energy into it and clean it up. There are however two major problems to it. 1. Raw energy is destructive. It needs either a complicated machine to recieve the energy or it needs a intelligent plan and order to place the right amount of energy to a specific area. I can add energy to Clemente my room by fixing my bed, putting the socks in the drawer, pick up the dirty dishes on the nightstand. However would the same result would happen if I pulled the pin on a grenade and threw it in my room? 2. Nothing can overcome the law forever. The room, even if I left it alone, would gather dust and get musty and moldy. Any wood in my room would eventually rot. Any plastic would eventually break down and so on. So this applies to the theory of evolution. Evolution states that a single simple cell evolved into what we see today but that violates the second law of thermodynamics. When a theory conflicts with a law who wins out, the theory or the law?