Scientific evidence does not support Evolution

My contention is that evolution can’t happen and that there is no evidence supporting the idea that it ever happened in the past. First, I would like to separate evolution into two stages or categories. The first is microevolution, change within the kind of animal. Microevolution is observable and scientific. The argument is on macroevolution, change across kinds of animals. For example, there are hundreds of varieties of dogs. They all probably had a common ancestor that was a dog. The amount of variation allowed in a dog’s gene pool can be immense, but no new information is ever added to that. That is why variations have limits and no dog will ever produce a non-dog over however many generations. Next, due to the character limit, the answers to Con’s 10 questions can be found in the comments. Evolution Can’t Happen Con starts by summarizing what evolution is and how it is suppose to happen. The idea is that hereditary mutations alter the gene codes of animals, giving them different traits and characteristics. Then natural selection “weeds” out the bad mutations, leaving only the better mutated animals to reproduce. It sounds simple, but all this is based on the assumption that there are beneficial mutations in the first place. Mutations are random mistakes or “typos” that occur during DNA replication. Mutations can cause diseases, deformities, and even death. No one has ever observed a mutation add new, useful information to the genome. Genes and traits are carefully interlocked with each other, and they work together like one complex machine. Mutations, which are random, confused errors are always harmful or lethal if they have any effect. “An accident, a random change, in any delicate mechanism can hardly be expected to improve it. Poking a stick into the machinery of one’s watch or one’s radio set will seldom make it work better. ”—Theodosius Dobzhansky, Heredity and the Nature of Man (1964), p. 126. [Dobzhansky is a geneticist. ] Saying that mutations could cause beneficial evolutionary change is like saying throwing a rock into the complex, interlocked gears of a machine would improve the machine. The rock would clog the machine and either destroy it or make it worse off. (. http://www.icr.org...) In the 1900’s, many scientists spent years, some even their entire lives, irradiating fruit flies, simulating mutations that would only be seen from many millions of years of mammalian generations. They observed hundreds of different mutations with hundreds of different effects on the poor flies. Not one mutation was beneficial. Flies that didn’t die from the mutations had all kinds of abnormal deformities and impairments. Here is a partial list of the mutations: . http://cgslab.com... “Out of 400 mutations that have been provided by Drosophila melanogaster, there is not one that can be called a new species. It does not seem, therefore, that the central problem of evolution can be solved by mutations. ”—Maurice Caulery, Genetics and Heredity (1964), p. 119. Similar experiments have been done with roses, other plants, and animals all showing that no mutations could be helpful. As we have seen, a mutation will never improve an organism. Yet Con wants to suggest that billions upon billions of beneficial mutations, all working together, could “evolve” a macromolecule into a human. I would like for Con, in the next round, to give an example of a beneficial mutation that has been observed to add new, useful genetic complexity. Evolution Hasn’t Happened in the Past Con argues that since insulin that works in pigs also works in human bodies, we have genetic and anatomical similarities with pigs. This is correct, but it in no way proves that humans are related to pigs. Similarities could be a sign of a common creator. A Honda Accord and a Honda Civic are different cars but have many interchangeable parts. This is because they both have a common creator. It is a fact that humans and pigs use similar hormones. The evolutionist’s interpretation of the fact is “Wow, this is because the pig and the human both share a common ancestor. ” The Creationist, on the other hand, will say “Wow, this is because both humans and pigs share a common intelligent designer. ” The problem is that only the evolutionist’s interpretation is presented as science. Similarities could be a sign of either a common designer or common ancestry, but don’t point directly to either one. “The most important kind of evidence is that based on a comparative study of the structure and development of various groups. The use of such evidence is based on the assumption that the more closely the body plans of two phyla resemble each other, the closer their relationship and the more recent their common ancestor. ”— Ralph Buchsbaum, Animals without Backbones (1948), p. 335. Con’s second proof is again derived from the presumption that similarity proves relatedness. Con argues that there are genetic similarities between humans and apes. He is right, but this does not prove that humans evolved from an ape-like ancestor. Two Microsoft programs would share thousands similarities in their code, and this is because of a common designer. It is a fact that genetic similarities exist amongst living things. Different people can have different interpretations of that fact. Con’s job is to provide strong evidence that could not be explained from a Creation viewpoint. Con has stated that there are “earth shattering findings of different species of humans”, implying that they are intermediates between us and our supposed ape-like ancestors. If there were any, they would indeed support evolution, but there aren’t any. Con has listed the Neanderthal, Hobbits, and Homo Erectus, so those are the ones I shall explain. Neanderthals are humans with primitive-like features. Although it may seem like it, Neanderthal men are not a different species of humans. They are regular humans afflicted with arthritis and rickets. Con mentioned the Ice Age, and from a Creation perspective, the Ice Age was caused by worldwide dust pollution from the flood, blocking out the sun. The lack of sunlight would cause rickets in the Neanderthal, curving the pelvis and giving them bowed legs. Additionally, the lack of Vitamin D would induce facial changes including enlargement of the eye cavity. Their arthritis would make larger brow ridges more prominent as well. (“Was Virchow Right About Neanderthal? ” in Nature, August 1970. ) “Neanderthal man may have looked like he did, not because he was closely related to the great apes, but because he had rickets, an article in the British publication Nature suggests. The diet of Neanderthal man was definitely lacking in Vitamin D. ”—“Neanderthals had Rickets,” in Science Digest, February 1971, p. 35. Another idea is that the Bible indicates that people living shortly after the flood had increased lifespans. This would cause Neanderthaloid features such as the elongated cranial vault, heavy eyebrow ridges, etc. People living up to a hundred today start to develop these characteristics. As for the Indonesian Hobbits, they weren’t a new species of human, but were probably microcephalic pygmies. (. https://answersingenesis.org...) For his last “new species of human” Con has only said Homo Erectus, which is a broad term that could include multiple findings, such as Java Man, Peking Man, etc. I would like for Con to give a specific example of what he means his next argument. Lastly, Con argues that bacteria and viruses can become resistant to antibiotics and antibodies over time. He is right, but this doesn’t prove that macroevolution can or has occurred. Resistant strains emerge due to mutation, but these mutations are not beneficial. The way antibiotics kill bacteria is that they latch onto and destroy a crucial protein needed for the bacteria to live or reproduce. However, if a mutation causes that specific protein to be deformed or developed improperly, the antibiotic won’t be effective on that bacteria. But in a non-restricted condition where antibiotics aren’t present, the mutant bacteria will be worse off compared to the rest of the population. The situation is similar with viruses with mutated capsids becoming resistant to antibodies. Con’s Request Con has asked for me to name credible scientists who claim evolution is not scientifically supported. “The evolution of the animal and plant worlds is considered by all those entitled to judgment to be a fact for which no further proof is needed. But in spite of nearly a century of work and discussion there is still no unanimity in regard to the details of the means of evolution. ”—Richard Goldschmidt, “Evolution, as Viewed by One Geneticist,” in American Scientist, Vol. 409, January 1952, p. 84. “Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless. ”—Bounoure, Le Monde et la Vie (October 1983) [Former director of Research at the National Center of Scientific Research in France. ] All this is unrelated to the topic though. Whether or not a credible scientist questions evolution is irrelevant to whether or not evolution is scientific. Even if all scientists did believe in evolution, that still wouldn’t prove anything. Science is what we know based on observation and experimentation, not what the majority believes. And the majority of scientists have been wrong many times before throughout history. There was a time when the majority of scientists believed that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects. For many years the majority of scientists believed in spontaneous generation. As for an alternative to evolution, I believe in a young-earth Creation as in the Bible, and no I can not prove it to be true. But remember the burden of proof is on the evolutionist. Sources: Listed throughout argument.