Evolution, usually refered to as Darwinian Evolution, is the belief that through mutations in DNA , environmental changes, natural selection, and changes in or addition to genetic information, that over many generations, one type of organism will change into another by acquiring new features and/or altering the one's it has. Evolution teaches that this process takes many millions of years to occur and occurs by organisms somehow adding information to their genome, "going uphill" is what some Creationists call it.
It is said that scientists have a chart showing the progression from early "simple" creatures to increasingly "sophisticated" organisms until we have the animals we now have living today. All phyla (body plans for life) of animals are descnded through common ancestors at the branching parts of the "tree of life" and this branching goes all the way back to the first life form that arose from non living matter at an unknown time in history by unknown processes.
Darwinian Evolution has in fact never been observed or repeated, except for microevolution, which is change within a species, aka Adaptation. There is currently no scientific evidence to support Macroevolution, change from one type or phyla of organism to a different one. However Microevolution is not contested since it has been observed and can be repeated with experiments. The problem in saying that Evolution is science and that it has been observed lies in the issue of which form of evolution is being referred to, Micro or Macro. Many try to equivocate the two but this is little more than a fallacious argument since the two versions are far from being the same and whereas Microevolution has been observed and studied numerous times, Macroevolution has yet to be and in reality defies all the observations and data that constitutes Microevolution.
The General Theory of Evolution is based largely on a Humanist (Atheist) mind set and can be best classified as Pantheism (Nature worship). As of so far, Darwinistic Evolution is in reality, dogma, meaning that there is little to no evidence whatsoever to back up the claims of its boastings and tall tales. It is based almost entirely upon blind faith. It is well known that many lies, hoaxes and attrocities ahve been committed in the name of Evolution and there is no honest scientific data to support it. This also means that those that teach Evolution are in fact, preachers of the faith. This is not to say that there is no science in Evolution, it is only that geuine science is woven into the Theory of Evolution in an attempt support and prove it, this has muddied the waters of true science and caused much confusion and misleadings.
One of the crucial aspects of Evolution is the definition of it. When asked to define Evolution, many Evolutionists will say something like "change over time" or "descent with modification". If such vague definitions are used then of course Evolution is true for know sane person can argue that the present is not different from the past or that children are different from their parents. However what is argued is Darwinism, which specifically states that organisms can change above the level of Family or Genus, such as a bear to a whale or even a horse to a cow. This yet to be observed process goes further to say that with the aid of genetic mutations giving rise to new traits, genetic information and even organs will arise to benefit an organism and that the process takes many millions of years. These claims are contested because they go directly against scientific findings, knowledge and scientific laws.
Evolution has made no true progress since it's official introduction into western society in 1859 except in the philosophy of anti Christian groups. In fact every field of legitimate science has made many discoveries to discredit and disprove Darwinian Evolution, such as the discovery of DNA, the structure of living cells, the realization of the miniscule amount of anti matter in the universe, detailed analysis of elements and compounds, the detailed workings of the systems of living bodies such as the nervous system, the fossil record, archeology, langauge studies, mathematical statistical formulas, geology, and more. In fact, many attempts to prove Darwinian Evolution have backfired in embarrassing ways such as proposed "cave men", which have invariably been shown to be anything but "missing links" between primates and humans. Some of the so called missing links have turned out to be a man with arthiritist, a species of pig believed extinct and then found living in Paraguay in the 1970's, normal humans, chimpazees, and hoaxes galore made by other Darwinists to try and produce evidence.
Proponents of Evolution have in fact yet to answer many questions that have invariably been created by coming up with a theory of gradualism and randomness. When presented with these questions, Evolutionary believers will often side step the question in some way since they have no answer for them or give a very unsatisfactory answer that leaves much to be desired. Whether or not they always realize this is uncertain, although it is impossible to be so devoted to the subject or the debate of Evolution vs. Creationsim without knowing these questions, at least if one does so for a living.
Some fair questions that cannot be answered by Darwinists what caused the Big Bang event? Meaning how could matter have spontaneously come into existence (without a miracle)? The laws of Thermodynamics explicitly state that matter cannot come into existence from nowhere, it cannot be created or destroyed. This means that in laymens terms that something cannot come from nothing. Noty only is it scientifically impossible for the Bing Bang to happen or create anything, what caused it? There was nothingness. Nothing cannot produce anything.
Another problem Darwinists have failed to address is how did the explosion of the Big Bang create anything? And how did anything that came from the explosion come together and form anything in a vacuum? Anything resulting from an explosion in a vacuum can never come together, any matter will only move farther apart, it cannot come closer together, let alone form any sort of gravitation.
As for life forms themselves, it has yet to be answered by Evolutionists as to how any living organisms actually came into existence. The Law of Biogenesis states that life can only come from other life, it is impossible for life to come from non life. Not only this, but It is impossible for life to arise in an environment without oxygen as has been estblished through experiments by scientists such as Lazzrao Spallazani in 1768 when he boiled chicken broth in an oxygen free flask and nothing arose, not even microbes.
Darwinist Scientists still cling to Abiogenesis however, a belief that was invented by Greek philosophers. Abiogenesis is the belief that life can spontaneously generate or spring into existence from non living matter. Such as the belief that insects were born directly from food or that mice spontaneously came into existence from grain. Abiogenesis is also known as Spontaneous Generation, and although it has thoroughly disproven scientifically, Darwinian Evolution still relies heavily upon it in the face of scientific evidence and reason as the explanation of how life first arose.
"Spontaneous generation is a chimera (illusion)." Luois Pasteur, French chemist and microbiologist. Isaac Asimov's Book of Science and Nature Quotations, 1998. Pg. 193
Assuming that life somehow arose from random, undirected processes from non living material (a scientific impossibility), the chances of one, let alone several million species of organisms is statistically and scientifically impossible. If Darwinian Evolution is in fact, a fact, there should not be or have ever been many distinct species or even kinds of organisms, only countless intermediate and undefined creatures with characteristics from many classes of life forms and no set physical characteristics. The fact that there are distinct species confounded Darwin and in reality, continues to confound modern day Darwinists. Aside from the baffling problem of so many species, the fact many, if not all organisms are so symetrical is a puzzlement. By Evolutionary standards of random chance it is highly unlikely that any organisms produced would have artistic symmetry to their bodies, they would most likely resemble lop sided flagellum or a Jackalope with antlers on only one side of it's skull. In short, chimeras.
If assumed once again that life did arise in some primitive environment as put forward, why would organisms develop the need for two seperate genders? And what are the chances of both a male and a female would come into existence in the same place at the same time? The issue confounds many Evolutionary researchers.
"[The many problems] make the whole rigamarole seem downright maladaptive. Yet it is common, while asexual reproduction is rare..The origin of sex remains one of the most challenging questions in [evolutionary] biology." R. Milner
"Even Charles Darwin thought natural selection could not account for peacock's tails or similar fantasitc structures so prominent in courtship displays. On the contrary, elaborate appendages or tail feathers could easily get in the way when animals had to escape enemies..Still, if elaborate plumage makes the birds more vulnerable to predators, why should evolution favor them?" R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution, 1990, pg. 402-404.
Indeed, it would be much simpler and easier if all organisms were female. This means that any attempt to cross the trans-species barrier would require both male and female organisms, meaning not one animal but two.
Another large hurdle for Darwinian change is the issue of major organs such as the hearts, lungs, brain, etc. How did these organs arise slowly, to their intricate and finely tuned states over long periods of time while the animal stayed alive? And how did the animal live before it had these vital organs? An animal cannot live without any one of it's vital organs, and certainly not without all of them.
These are only some of the fair questions that doubters of Darwinian Evolution ask an answer to and have yet to get. Is it not fair to question Evolution and it's proposed evidences? Or is it just that there are no answers to such questions that give credence to Darwinism? These questions are about glaring problems with the Darwinian theory of Evolution that have yet to be answered in a scientific manner and show no sign of being anytime soon. This is one of the biggest flaws with Darwinian Evolution, it msut be able to account for the progression of existence and life and each and every single step in history such as the origin of the universe, the origin of life, the origin of each phyla of life forms, the origin of features and functions in each life form, the information needed to make and program the attributes of features in nature and organisms, etc. Yet the reality of the situation is that none of these steps in evolution can be accounted for and remain an utter mystery to researchers who in the face of and under the weight of the evidence refuse to abandon a materialistic philosophy that flies int he face of all observed scientific findings humans have made. When it comes down to it, the evidence is not what matters to msot people, it is the unwillingness to consider or subscribe to the alternative model of life and history, Creation, that prevents most from abandoning the Theory of Evolution.