Evolution Has No Supporting Proof, Only Evidence Against It.

Let me start. Based on Michael Behe"s analysis, we know that it is probabilistically impossible for life on earth to have macro evolved up to the point of homo sapiens. We know that Chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium is rare due to it requiring a double mutation. It is calculated that it occurs in approximately 1 out of every 10"20 Plasmodium parasites. A very sick person with this parasite will have approximately 10"12 parasites in his body. If a billion people were infected, then there would be 10 21 parasites total, meaning that PROBABLY, there would only be ONE Plasmodium cell with the double mutation required for chloroquine resistance. This is only for ONE double mutation. If we talk about 2 double mutations in one cell, the probability would be 1 in 10"40. Now read carefully. That number (10"40) exceeds the total amount of cells to have ever existed in the billions of years on Earth. Therefore, it is the limit of evolution of any life on Earth, mathematically. As the probability of JUST 2 double mutations is out of the question for our evolutionary timescale. Source: The Edge of Evolution, M. Behe. Assuming standard evolutionary timescale, the maximum number of humans since the split with chimps from ape like ancestors is 10"12. Therefore, in the future when 10"20 humans have existed in total, a double mutation will only have been developed once. That is a span of about 7 million years in evolutionary timescale, where our ancestors supposedly evolved in many aspects, with many, many, many complex (double, triple quad, 8x, 16x and so on) mutations. Mathematically it is not possible. It also makes things like the Bacterial Flagellum (which requires various MULTIPLE mutations to happen from ONE generation to the NEXT) way, way, WAY impossible. It can"t happen through various generations because unless it has all its parts at once it does not have a function and would not be naturally selected. There is no known source for creating new genetic info, naturally. Repeating doesn"t count, because it is the same genetic info, just repeated. There is no NEW information. More? Yes. But nothing new. Things like Down syndrome are a great example, a chromosome is repeated and it doesn"t even help. A virus or parasite can add genetic info, but how did that virus get its genetic info? From another virus? And that other virus? How did viruses arise then? Using the parasite argument is just moving in circles because ultimately the parasite had to have gotten its genetic info by completely natural means. If macro evolution is true, there has to be a natural mechanism (like mutations) that can create new genetic info. There isn"t. Even if there were, there is no proof they have happened. Any sort of evidence for macroevolution is based on logical fallacies or presupposed conclusions. Such as similarities between DNA, which only implies a common origin, not a common ancestor. This origin could either be an ancestor, or a designer. And note that the inference you would make (common origin) by comparing the DNA is based on statistical logic, since you conclude that it would be far too unlikely that organism A and organism B evolved separately on different parts of the world but just by chance happened to form very similar genomes. A coincidence that big is denied by simple statistical logic. If macroevolution was proven, we would see a tree of life as Darwin predicted in his book. Yet we don"t, because everything starts at the Cambrian explosion era, and before that we have not even EVIDENCE (let alone proof) that all life had a common ancestor. Furthermore, macroevolution is not the same thing as microevolution over long periods of time. Micro is just variation, but Macro is both variation and increase. Let me give you a source that confirms that microevolution and macroevolution are not based on the same mechanisms: In 1980 about 150 of the world's leading evolutionary theorists gathered at the University of Chicago for a conference entitled "Macroevolution. " Their task: "to consider the mechanisms that underlie the origin of species" (Lewin, Science vol. 210, pp. 883-887). "The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution . . . the answer can be given as a clear, No. " So there is no need to try and use the "macro is the same as micro" argument. Math is an absolute. We can trust it completely. Probabilistic logic is crucial for science, and if you deny probabilistic logic, then you can"t argue for macroevolution, as any sort of evidence for it is based on probabilistic logic as well. So you can either not give arguments for macroevolution, or you can try to give them (accepting use of statistical logic) and be forced to accept that it is contextually impossible for Earth. What people consider to be evidence (notice I am saying evidence and not proof) for macroevolution, are based on logical fallacies or unjustified exclusive reason