3 basic reasons for why I don't accept evolution.

1. Biological impossibility Random mutations followed by natural selection are not enough to add the new and unique genetic material that is required in order to achieve the increase in the genetic complexity of the DNA that is necessary for the evolutionary process. Gene duplication and neofunctionalization are the explanations that are currently being used to explain the increase of genetic complexity. However,Neofunctionalization has never been observed. Articles showing examples of neofunctionalization merely speculate that such event actually happened. As a model it has issues too since duplicated genes usually are silenced over time.And silenced genes tend to get degenerated or deleted. Also,if this was the case,we should observe a relation between genetic complexity and organism complexity. Which is not the case. Note that I accept variations within kinds. Like wolfs from dogs,dogs with different sizes and shapes...but changes like reptile to bird or gradually from fish to mammal are not plausible for me. There are too many changes involved and the gain of genetic complexity mentioned is mandatory. To understand this better,the changes that we can see today are just "horizontal changes" while the changes proposed by the theory of evolution are "vertical changes". They are on different plans. Genetically they are different things. Now,if a mechanism that allows the genetic changes necessary for evolution was proposed and that mechanism could be proved with observation and experimentation,we could start to think about my second reason for why I don't accept evolution. 2. The mathematical impossibility of evolution. In order to prove this,I would like to propose a simple model (It was not made by me. I do not own this equation.) This equation uses unreal numbers. However,those unreal numbers are very kind to the evolutionary model. Imagine a bacteria has evolved from a simpler bacteria. It is composed by 200 parts that work together. Each feature is caused by one mutation. For each part that is added,the bacteria's mechanism becomes more complex. In order to achieve the 200 parts,everything has to be in its place. Which means that the more features it gains the more improbable is that the next mutation is going to succeed because the new features have to be in harmony with all the previous one,and since we have more and more possible mutations as the organism evolves,the success rate of the mutations drops exponentially as the organism gets more complex. We have more and more places to aim and statistically less and less "jackpots".So,in the end,despite the accumulation of mutations by natural selection,they have to succeed 200 times in a role to make this calculation a little bit more closer to reality. As in reality the number of possible mutations would actually increase rather than staying the same. Now,imagine that since evolution is a process without a goal and it's more like a bush with a lot of leaves and endings,we don't know what exactly is a good mutation in the context of the place where the bacteria lives. If it was a mutation that (just for example) made it weak against sunlight,it would be bad if the bacteria was living in a place with light. Also,we have degenerative mutations that could destroy the mechanism of the bacteria or "crash its system" like mentioned before.(The danger of crashing the system increases even more when we are dealing with higher organisms. But let's keep it simple) They all have to be in accordance to each other. All of them should point "good".So let's just say that the odds of getting a beneficial mutation are 50/50. With that in mind,lets think about a population of bacterias so we can set the ground for natural selection. Let's say that each of the 10^14 square feet of the Earth was filled with 10^9 bacterias. It means that the entire population in the planet is 10^23 bacteria. Now let's set a mutation rate. Let's set it in 2 mutations per second. That's unrealistic but we are setting kind numbers for evolution That means that in 100 seconds we would have 200 mutations. Now that everything is in its place,let's set an amount of time to calculate. 10 billion years. (That's more than the proposed age of the Earth...)Which,converted in seconds,is 10^18. Since the mutation rate is 2/second and in 100 seconds we have 200 mutations,we can make 10^18/10^2 and say that we'll have a total of 10^16 mutations for each individual in 10 billion years. 10^16 mutations for a population of 10^23 individuals means that we'll have 10^39 mutations or 10^39 trials to achieve the proposed 200 beneficial mutations and evolve. That seems a lot. However,the odds that someone is always going to succeed are not that big. If we take 1/2 chances for beneficial mutations and make (1/2)^200 we have 10^60. Which means that the odds of a single individual to "win all of them" is 1 in 10^60. But,since we have so many individuals trying and natural selection is accumulating the mutations for us,we can do it easily right ? Actually,no. If we take those two numbers and make 10^60/10^39 you'll have 10^21. That means that the odds of a successful lineage of mutations to happen and lead our primitive bacteria to the slightly better 200 new features bacteria is only 1 in 10^21. That's only one chance in 100000000000000000000000 trials. That seems a lot. A miracle. Now imagine that in a shorter amount of time with much lower mutation rate. And more than just 200 mutations. Nothing can compensate this. People might argue about natural selection fixating mutations. However,we have to realize that every mutation has to be in accordance with all the previous ones to get "selected". Despite the exponential increase of options (and possible errors and disasters) and the exponential decrease in the percentage of beneficial constructive mutations that will not "crash the system". It's like playing chess blindfolded. You might be ok for the first turn. But the more the game advances,more "dangerous" it is to move randomly. 3. The circular-reasoning nature of the evidences. Most of the evidences proposed for evolution consist of the similarities in the DNA,comparative anatomy and the fossil record. While Evolution is consistent with those evidences and makes a good job telling a story from them,the true nature of those arguments is based purely on circular reasoning. Why ? Well,let's take genetic similarity for example. They say : "genetic similarities were caused by evolution (common ancestry)". Have you ever stopped to ask yourself how do they know that it was evolution that did that and not anything else ? In fact,creation would also fit that evidence perfectly. (Common designer = similar design). But how do they know that this evolution is true ? Well,they know that because the genetic similarities prove evolution. Do you realize it ? "Evolution is true because the genetic similarities prove that evolution is true because the genetic similarities prove that...(loop goes on). (By the way,I always found this claim that we share 97% of our DNA with chimps is a little exaggerated. For those who now how the genes are,that's like saying "the closest star from Earth is only 1 AU away ! So close !" Yeah,sure it is but that doesn't mean so much. It's obvious because this "closest star" is our sun. And 1 AU is still quite a lot for a human being. It's obvious that we share similarities with chimps. We can say that by looking at their anatomy. But it's not like that at any moment a chimp might dress his suit,drive his car and go to a job interview. So easy there. That's pure propaganda aiming those who are not familiar to this topic.) Also they say that independent lines of evidence prove those claims but is that real ? Comparative anatomy is basically the same thing like genetic similarity (quite obvious that we all have some things in common. We live in the same planet ! And it's obvious that if you spend your entire life in the water you'll have less things in common with me. But you'll still have somethings since we are still on Earth.) The fossil records are debatable. Many polemic interpretations,hoaxes,links missing,evolutionary trees that don't look like trees when you look at the fossil record... In the end,you'll only believe what is told about the fossil records if you already believe in evolution. For example,I can't see maiacetus as a "walking whale". And for me tiktaalik is just a fish. (By the way,those tetrapods footprints dating older than tiktaalik were...interesting...) In the end it's just circular reasoning. "Those characteristics belong to both species" > how can you say that those characteristics were inherited from this specific specie ? > "because according to the theory of evolution,this creature evolved from..." > How do you know that evolution actually happened ? > "well,because we have these fossils and..." And this is the circular reasoning in this. So for me,those evidences,though many of them consistent with their explanation,are meaningless when you are trying to convince me of a scientific "fact". Because no matter how many of these you gather,if you don't show the mechanisms specifically,I'm not going to lose my skepticism. I could gather a ton of "facts" to prove that cars evolved from motorcycles. I can even give you a transitional form called "quad bike". Those might be enough to fool some superstitious peasant in the Middle Ages. But that's not enough to convince me. Science must be based on empirical data and consistent evidences. Not on assumptions and faith. No matter how convincing your "evidences" are,if the basic mechanism for your theory doesn't work,everything turns into "just a good story". In other words,science-fiction. There are other reasons for why I don't believe evolution and it's claims. But those presented here are the basic 3 reasons for why I reject it. If the base of your theory is all screwed up,I don't even have to see the rest... Thank yo