The theory of evolution is well established

Evidence from Genetics Proponents of evolution claim that the universal genetic code is evidence for evolution. This isn't the case at all! Even pro-evolution sources admit this [1]. The very same aticle also points out there are actually exceptions to the universal genetic code. As a rule, there are 20 standard amino acids used by all organisms. There are, however, a few exceptions to that rule where organisms have added new amino acids to their genetic structure [1]. The fact that the genetic code is constrained to 4 nucleotides and 20 amino acids is considered an enigma by evolutionists [1]. In fact, humans have engineered bacteria that can reproduce using 6 nucleotides [2]. The authors of that experiment also raise the question as to why evolution settled on only 4 nucleotides. If evolution predicted the universality of the genetic code, then exceptions would discredit the theory. Instead we find the theory able to easily accomodate such exceptions [1]. On the contrary, we find evolutions wondering why a universal genetic code exists at all [1] [2]. But that is not the only trouble evolutionists have with genetics. Evolution predicts that without external causes, we would see an orderly progression of species as determined by molecular homologies. In more common terms, that means that genes common between two descendants of a common ancestor should also be shared by that ancestor. There are an overwhelming number of exceptions to this rule. According to the National Center for Biotechnology, "Phrases like "sequence (structural) homology", "high homology", "significant homology", or even "35% homology" are as common, even in top scientific journals, as they are absurd, considering the above definition" [3]. They furthermore state that it is impossible to know which family (on a phylogenetic tree) a specific gene belongs to, because at best they can make an educated guess. Schwabe was one of the first molecular evolutions at the time molecular evolution became a technical possibility. Schwabe is quoted as saying, "Instead it seems disconcerting that many exceptions exist to the orderly progression of species as determined by molecular homologies; so many, in fact, that I think the exception, the quirks, may carry the more important message" [4]. These quirks later led Schwabe to believe in multiple common ancestry. But Schwabe wasn't alone in these beliefs. Gregory Warr coauthored a book with Schwabe claiming, "They saw the field of molecular evolution as being mired in subjectivity driven by an a priori commitment to universal common ancestry" [5] [6]. It is true that there are multiple naturalistic explanations for these quirks. Given an abitrary quirk in the phylogenetic tree, an evolutionist cannot prove which hypothesis is the best explanation. In other words, they have provided the possibility of naturalistic causes, but they have not shown probability. I will come back to that. Commonality in DNA in a version of the phylogenetic tree is used as evidence for common ancestry. However, if mutations are indeed random, we would not expect this to be the case. If given common ancestry, is there a premise which logically produces the conclusion that humans should share any DNA in common with fish? I challenge Pro to produce one. If DNA is used in all species to code for traits, we should expect similarities in organisms to determine how much DNA is shared in common. This would need to take into consideration that there is more than one genetic code which produces the same function [1]. Pro has already demonstrated that two organisms with similar function share similar DNA sequences. Pro claims that the similarity is based on inheritance. This is not predicted by evolution. Evolution simply accommodates it. In fact, there are multiple species who share a high degree of genetic similarity without inheritance, a phenomena called convergence evolution [7]. For example, dolphins, sharks and ichthyosaurs are from very different origins, yet they are physically and genetically similar. The genetic similarity was surprising to evolutionists, because it doesn't fit with pure random mutation predictions. There are, of course, other examples. To quote livescience on the convergent evolution between dolphins and bats, "We didn't expect to see more than perhaps 10 to 30 genes converge, probably mainly hearing-related ones," researcher Joe Parker, an evolutionary biologist at Queen Mary University of London, told LiveScience. "Instead, we were able to detect many times that number." So we see that structural similarity is a stronger predictor of genetic similarity than ancestry. We see that universal genetic code is not only not predicted by evolution, but it isn't true in observable nature or in a laboratory. We see that the genetic homologies predicted by evolution contain many exceptions which evolution accommodates with observable natural phenomena without the ability to test they hypothesis of causality. The Fossil Record The fossil record should be a good indicator of when a species came into existence. Darwinian evolution, which seems to be what is proposed here, claims that small changes happened over time and natural selection acted on those changes to create distance between species of the same family. This slow trickle of new species is not what we observe in the fossil record. [8] Instead, we observe what have been called punctuated equalibria. The cause of punctuated equalibria has been debated since Eldredge and Gould popularized the idea in their book published in 1972. The history of the theory actually goes back to the 1950s. There is still no demonstrable cause for this observation in the fossil record. One of the most notable leaps is known as the Cambrian Explosion, an event which produced almost every family of species currently known to man. The Wikipedia article on the topic presents and refutes 12 explanations for the Cambrian Explosion [9]. We have fossils that suggest evolution in lower forms of life, but we lack a fossil record of transitional forms of higher taxa. Evolutionists dismiss this in a number of ways. I will name two: 1) Fossils are rarely formed, so we shouldn't expect to see evidence for transitional forms 2) The transitional forms were so short lived that they didn't leave fossils The second is popular among those aware of punctuated equilibria. However, the application of natural selection specifically on these transitional forms requires speculation without any scientific data to support it. The transitional forms we do see are based almost entirely on morphological phylogenetic trees. In other words, if an unknown species is found, the structural features distinguishable on the fossil are compared to known organisms, and it is then placed in the phylogenetic tree based on almost arbitrary criteria. For example, Deinonychus was once considered to be a link between birds and mammals. A more in-depth, work-cited history of the belief in the bird-mammal relationship can be found at trueorigins [11]. In fact, go back and watch the first "Jurassic Park" movie and listen to the archeologist in the movie explain that the dinosaur was a bird (he was later corrected in the movie, of course). I have already demonstrate functional and genetic similarities among species known not to have any evolutionary relationship to each other. Thus, I have shown the criteria used to determine transitional forms for fossils to be purely speculative regardless of the method used. Evidence from Geographic Distribution Evolution may accommodate the different forms of species forming in different continents. It is not a logically valid argument. Allow me to demonstrate. P1) Each specific evolution takes place in a single location P2) A specific evolution that cannot cross water will be limited to the land body it is on P3) We observe species that exist only on one land body C) Evolution took place on land masses separated by water However, we see this Geo-spacial division in species able to travel from one area to another. The fact a species lives only on a single island, Australia for example, is not evidence that evolution took place. In fact, it is entirely possible that animals unique to Australia existed before Australia became an island. The conclusion does not follow from the premises. In short, the conclusions drawn by evolution do not logically follow their premises. Some of their conclusions are used as a premise in further conclusions. Many predictions made by evolution have been proven to have numerous exceptions. There exist logical explanations for the conclusions drawn by evolutionists that do not entail the premises on which their conclusions are based. Science deals only with nature. Anything outside of nature is outside of science. If nature is all there is, evolution is the most logical conclusion. But it has not been shown that nature is all there is. That's a different debate. 1) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 2) http://www.livescience.com... 3) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 4) Schwabe, Christian. 1986. On the Validity of Molecular Evolution. Trends in Biochemical Sciences 11:280-283. 5) http://www.trueorigin.org... 6) Schwabe, Christian and Gregory W. Warr. 1984. A Polyphyletic View of Evolution: The Genetic Potential Hypothesis. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 27:465-485. 7) http://www.livescience.com... 8) http://www.geo.arizona.edu... 9) http://en.wikipedia.org... 10) Benton, Michael J. (editor). 1993. The Fossil Record 2. Chapman & Hall, London. 11) http://www.trueorigin.org...