Evolution is not supported by science or evidence

Thanks to, Jesusrules, for the challenge. Although some links may not be the most useful in terms of information, not all useful information is open to public access nor should any link I provide be counted as exhaustive in terms of coverage. Where able I will continue to link to information Pro can access. Pro has correctly pointed out that there is a vast breadth of fields and knowledge used to support evolution e.g. palaeontology, geology, morphology. To cover them all is impossible here, to even cover one facet in great depth is. Evolution has many layers of support but perhaps the most important is at the fundamental genetic level where change initially occurs. How these changes play out may require greater focus in later rounds - we shall see. Basic definitions: Evolution is defined as the change in allele frequencies in a population. [1] A population is a group of freely interbreeding individuals. An allele is one form of a gene e.g. blood type. A gene is a portion of an organism's genome that codes for a specific trait. Fitness is the ability to survive to reproductive maturity. Genetic variation arises through two processes, mutation and recombination. Mutation occurs when DNA is imperfectly copied during replication, leading to a difference between a parent's gene and that of its offspring (this is normal - only MZ twins or clones exhibit exact DNA in relation to another organism). Types of mutation: Substitution, Insertion, Deletion, Frameshift [2][3] All these give rise to variation. Variation that is inheritable. Some of those heritable, variable traits may affect an organism's fitness. Those traits that may increase an organism's fitness will tend to be passed on to an organism's offspring and subsequent generations. Subsequent factors such as natural selection, genetic drift, migration etc., will influence how these traits spread in a population. That's outside the bounds of this round however. All living species use the same system of heredity of DNA (RNA in some viruses) to encode genes that are passed to offspring which are then transcribed and translated into proteins. Biologists are able to *quantify* the genetic similarities among species to determine which species are more closely related to one another and which are more distantly related. The pattern of genetic relatedness (phylogenetics) between all species indicates a branching tree that implies divergence from a common ancestor. [4][5][6][7] Occasionally two branches may fuse e.g. Mitochondria - organelles found in the cells of plants and animals. Mitochondria have their own genes, more similar to genes in bacteria than to genes on the chromosomes in the cell nucleus. From this we can conclude that one of our distant ancestors arose from a symbiosis of two different cell types. [8] Gene duplication is another important mechanism for acquiring new genes and creating genetic novelty in organisms. Evidence suggests functional divergence of gene copies is a major factor promoting their retention in the genome itself. This duplicated gene is free to gather mutations and consequently broaden the phenotypic traits of the gene itself. Colour vision is a good example, where the single gene for colour vision has duplicated to allow for variations in the gene resulting in additional detection of specific wavelengths to occur.[9] In a similar frame, pseudogenes, those genes that were once active in ancestors but have since become inactive over time, are strong evidence for evolution. In humans, for example, these include olfactory receptor genes, many of which have become inactivate in the human lineage. DNA changes in pseudogenes can't be subject to natural selection, and so pseudogenes change is purely time dependent as those dead genes accumulate mutations over time. The match between phylogenetic trees based on pseudogene DNA sequences (pure reflectance of passage of time) with phylogenetic trees based on organism's appearance is expected and found under an evolutionary scenario. [10] Heritable traits vary, and those traits may spread through populations over time. Variation does not necessarily mean advantageous or disadvantageous traits, though they may be (or neither). Mutations over time give rise to allele frequency shifts in populations. It's really that simple. Some may affect fitness some may not. Some may interact in the process called natural selection, some may not. [11] I may as well forestall common arguments at this point to save time: 1. No evidence for natural selection. Meta analysis of 993 observed cases [12] 2. No new information. Mutations may give rise to new information. [13] 3. No observed instances of beneficial mutations To the contrary. [14][15][16] 4. No instances of observed speciation. To the contrary. [17][18] [1] http://www.talkorigins.org... [2] http://evolution.berkeley.edu... [3] http://www.nature.com... [4]http://upload.wikimedia.org... [5] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [6] http://biologia.savba.sk... [7] http://www.nature.com... [8] http://www.dnasolutions.com.au... [9]http://genome.cshlp.org... [10] http://papers.gersteinlab.org... [11] http://www.gate.net... [12] http://www.pnas.org... [13] http://www.sciencedaily.com... [14] http://pandasthumb.org... [15] http://www.pnas.org... [16]http://www.newscientist.com... [17]http://www.talkorigins.org... [18]http://www.talkorigins.org...