Given the available data, denying the theory of evolution is completely unreasonable

The very first part in Pro"s definition of science was, "1- We start by observing a phenomenon that occurs in nature." Now no one has ever observed evolution happening. In fact, evolutionists tell us that it occurs too slowly for anyone to actually notice it"s going on. Now if I were to say that fairies existed, but they move so fast you can"t see them, you"d know I was merely qualifying my theory as an excuse for why evidence for them is not be observable. The same is true for evolution. At this junction, however, you may object that we do see small changes occur in various organisms, but this isn"t evidence that these creatures are becoming some new species. This is always just a case of variation within the kind. We have humans with blonde hair, red hair, brown and black hair; others with blue eyes, green eyes, brown and black eyes, still some people are tall like Michael Jordan and others are short like pygmies, but these are all recognized as variations within the human species. When two short parents with black hair give birth to a child who grows tall with brown hair, we don"t predict the child is becoming some new species. Its just variation within the kind; and there are boundaries of variation that are never ever crossed. We always run into these boundaries even when breeding animals. No amount of breeding has ever caused dogs to produce anything other than dogs, or cause fish to become frogs. "Breeders usually find that after a few generations, an optimum is reached beyond which further improvement is impossible, and there has been no new species formed . . . Breeding procedures, therefore, would seem to refute, rather than support evolution." (On Call, July 3, 1972, pp. 8, 9) "Species do indeed have a capacity to undergo minor modifications in their physical and other characteristics, but this is limited and with a longer perspective it is reflected in an oscillation about a mean [average]." (Science, "Evolutionary Theory Under Fire," by Roger Lewin, November 21, 1980, p. 884) So there is a limited range of variation. "Living things are enormously diverse in form, but form is remarkably constant within any given line of descent: pigs remain pigs and oak trees remain oak trees generation after generation." (Scientific American, "The Genetic Control of the Shape of a Virus," by Edouard Kellenberger, December 1966, p. 32) For example, consider bacteria. Bacteria are the most adaptable living things on the planet. They are found living in every environment known to man, from the extremely hot to the extremely cold. Most of them live only a few hours, and this is why its easier to observe successive generations of bacteria in the lab to see if they will ever evolve into anything else such as an amoeba, a cell, or some other organism. Yet, after thousands of independent studies observing countless generations of bacteria, they all still remained bacteria. Like humans, some grew bigger, some developed the ability to perform new functions, but they always remained bacteria. Richard Lenski"s experiment, after breeding over 60, 000 generations of e-coli bacteria, produced nothing more than bacteria. http://en.wikipedia.org... They were bigger, they learnt a new trick (ingesting citrate), but they still remained bacteria. Now I ask, if bacteria which are more adaptable to changing environments than animals don"t evolve into anything else given so many generations, how do we expect even much larges physical changes to have occurred to transform australopithecines into Neanderthals? If bacteria needs more than 60, 000 generations, mammals must need many times that, and I challenge Pro to show us that they had enough time. So we have observable evidence that evolution isn"t happening, and we don"t have enough time for the changes to occur, plus we don"t even observe evolution occurring which is one of the elements needed for it to be scientific. It must be observable. It isn"t. Take the example of the fruit-fly experiments. After breeding fruit flies %20 faster than normal, a team of scientists concluded: "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. Further, I don"t think Pro can sustain the dates he is arguing for. He merely mentions them, but gives no argument to show these dates are correct. This is important in establishing a timeline from one transitional form to the next. All carbon dating techniques, weather we use the potassium-argon clock or the rate of decay from carbon to lead, all involve half-lives of thousands of years. And my objection here goes back to Pro"s first point in what constitutes science. It begins with an observation. No one has ever observed any of these elements for thousands of years in a lab to prove that it actually took these amounts of time to decay into a daughter product. Its all based on speculation. I challenge Pro to tell us how anyone knows that it takes C-14 over 2000 years for half of it to decay into lead. That"s not science, its science fiction. Pro"s fifth point in establishing science is that "it must be able to produce accurate predictions." If it were true that creatures change to adapt to different environments, we should expect to find Eskimos growing fur just like all the mammals in the cold to keep them warm from the snow. At least they should be hairier than humans in the tropics but they aren"t. They are just as hairless as I am. Pro says humans have been here for 200 000 years now, so why is it in 200 000 years we see no evolution in humans? Why do animals in Africa where it is hot have thick fur coats when humans in the cold countries have none? Evolution seems to predict stuff scientists will find in the fossil record, most of which they already knew was there. But what about predicting what changes should be occurring right now? Ironic that evolutionists never predict what mutations or evolutionary pathways they expect to see in their experiments breeding fruit flies or bacteria. They never predict what will develop according to the environments they create. But claim they can predict what they will find in the fossil record. I find this suspicious. The only reason they could predict the discovery of a so-called sea to land transitional like tiktaalik is because we already have similar animals, such as the catfish and seals that both have fins for the water and walk around on the ground. So evolution isn"t predicting anything that we don"t already know exists. The platypus has characteristics of many species but isn"t a link to any of them. So to conclude evolution from such similarities is wishful thinking, not science. Let me see Pro tell us of a scientist who ever predicted a new feature developing among some species in modern times and show us that this prediction was fulfilled. Pro sees similar DNA as evidence of evolution, I see it as evidence of a common designer, just as many cars have similar styles because the same person designed them, and many books have similar styles because they have the same author. If every species and plant were completely different biochemically, how could we eat? We would not be able to digest and metabolize organisms whose biochemical structure was completely alien to us. But even similar DNA is insufficient to prove common ancestry, because "The amount of information in the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA in every human cell has been estimated to be equivalent to that in 1,000 books of encyclopaedia size. If humans were "only" 4% different this still amounts to 120 million base pairs, equivalent to approximately 12 million words, or 40 large books of information. This is surely an impossible barrier for mutations (random changes) to cross." http://www.google.com... Only %48.6 of the human genome matches nucleotide sequences for chimpanzees, and only %5 of human Y chromosomes can be matched to chimpanzee sequencing, so the similarities are not even as good as evolutionists would like. (Fujiyama, Asao, Hidemi Watanabe, et al., (2002), "Construction and Analysis of a Human-Chimpanzee Comparative Clone Map," Science, 295:131-134, January 4) The phylogeny of apes runs from the gibbon, to orangutans, to gorillas, to chimpanzees, to humans, according to evolutionary biology. http://www.google.com... Humans are much closer to chimps on this evolutionary scale than to gibbons, and yet, the difference between humans and chimps is far greater than the difference between a chimp and a gibbon. Even if we grant skeletal similarity to the evolutionists, humans are far more separated from chimps than gibbons in memory capacity, reasoning ability, brain complexity, and way of life. This should not be the case if evolution were true. If indeed we evolved from chimpanzees, its odd that the so-called intermediate forms such as australopithecus, homo erectus, and homo habilis are extinct but the inferior apes survived. How did lower lifeforms outlive their evolved successors? These are my opening arguments. I will respond to Pro's arguments next round.