Evolution is false

Thank you. I am having a difficult time deciphring your BS so forgive me if I miss something or misrepresent your position. 1. GlueThe idea that Propene has a half life, and that it cannot be produced anew in nature is utterly false. Acrylate is produced from propene which is produced from methane, which is produced from bacteria in nature, particularly from digestation of cellulose by bacteria. None of the elements which compose Acrylate are unstable in any way; carbon, hydrogen, and Nitrogen as found in nature are all stable. [1. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... and http://en.wikipedia.org... ] 2. The Law of Large Numbers. You state that over time, children becoming different from their ancestory is the key facet of evolution. Even "living fossils" have this trate and would not be genetically compatible with their ancestors, an effort forced particularly in small populations. When it comes to outward appearance, if something is strongly adaptive for its environment then its appearnce is unlikely to change; it already has the major physical trates that work. Such is evidence in favor of evolution, not against it. Talk Origins notes:The theory of evolution does not say that organisms must evolve morphologically. In fact, in an unchanging environment, stabilizing selection would tend to keep an organism largely unchanged. Many environments around today are not greatly different from environments of millions of years ago. Some so-called fossil species have evolved significantly. Cockroaches, for example, include over 4,000 species of various shapes and sizes. Species may also evolve in ways that are not obvious. For example, the immune system of horseshoe crabs today is probably quite different from that of horseshoe crabs of millions of years ago. [2 http://www.talkorigins.org...;]Irreducible Complexity: If something can be shown to be possibly reducible, it cannot be irreducibly complex. Irreducible complexity requires that thing cannot be reducible. Sexual Reproduction:Differentiation events do not at the time of the event produce a new species. Reference ring species. Further, you have not discredited my source, and thus your claims are mere assertion. EntropyThe CreationWiki commits the fallacy of equvivocation between "uniform randomness of kinetic energy" and "randomness of the particles in the system", which are completely different things. Everything you says hinges on that equivocation. Given the presence of that equivocation, his source is suspect. He might as well be arguing that there's Trouble in River City, and that starts with T that rhymes with P which stands for Pool...YouTube VideoIt has no sources whatsoever, and the creator is of dubious credents; even as an obvious argument from authority, it is particularly dubious. The video essentially claims unprecidented mobility of telomeres and centromeres, and of other DNA markers, but does not explain why the redundant centromeres and central telomeres of the merged chromosome 2 are in just the right place to resemble merged chromosomes from other primates, not to mention they also contain all the other major features of the original chromosomes in all the same places, save for the merge.