- How seemingly irreducibly complex things could have evolved.
- Why the only actual evidence of evolution shows loss of information, rather than generation of new information (where are the living specimens that are on their way to developing into something else, or developing some new organ?)
- Why Fresnel had to design a lens that magically evolved by itself for fish.
- How 65+ Million year old dinosaur blood and unfossilised bone could have been preserved that long.
Do you have any idea how many scientific laws have to be broken to allow the theory of evolution to float? Genetic mutations have never been observed to be beneficial. They're neutral at best, or they just loose the genetic information already present. Now Darwin tried to explain this with what he called "survival of the fittest". He theorised that the bad genetic mutations would die out and only the beneficial ones would live on. How come we haven't observed this? Usually when a genetic mutation occurs, good or bad, it eventually weeds its way through the entire species. If that observation is true, as it appears to be, than it means much more harm than good occurs from mutations, and so we shouldn't expect good results to flow.
IF the Earth was to remain in the "primordial soup" stage for 120 billion years, than it *might* have enough time to randomly assemble the genetic code for one cell of the simplest form of life. And even if it did, that code is required to lie there in a usable form, otherwise it is not going to do anything at all. Of course the universe is said to be 12 billion years old, the Earth 4.3ish billion years old, and of course in its primordial soup stage, a mere matter of a few thousand - or couple of million years, whatever you want to believe. The biggest problem is creating something from nothing. We all know the theory of the Big Bang relies on there being matter there all-along and does nothing to really explain the existence of matter, but just asserts to explain how the universe became like it is. What a completely useless theory! If matter was there all along, then why couldn't it have all started ordered like this?
Nevertheless, even if the theoretical origin of life does assemble itself, AND survive (I won't bother detailing the reasons why survival is blatantly impossible) - how is it going to replicate? Can it reproduce? No it can't. It can't grow, it can't create more-cells it can just live and sustain itself and that's about it. The theory of evolution requires reproduction - or it couldn't occur. So how did THAT evolve? Simply stated, it couldn't have. But let's say it did, and you've got your single-cell bacterium replicating itself, and re-arranging its genetic code to adapt to new environments and alike. Of course, it has to be able to adapt very quickly to climate changes as the Earth cools, but apparently it did. Now it's time to evolve into a higher form of life. Perhaps one where reproduction occurs between two different sex's of the same species. How is it going to do this? I mean it's happily been reproducing asexually, how is it going to rearrange its code to allow reproduction to occur between two different specimens of the species? What a load of rubbish!
But apparently it happened. Okay sure, why not? Maybe now it's simple useless floating around isn't doing much good anymore, and because it evolved into having different sex's it now needs to move around freely at will (or, it needs to move around freely at will because it intends to create different sex's). What does it need first? A Brain? A Heart? A Central Nervous System? Veins? Arteries? Blood? Kidney? Lungs? Stomach? Acid? Skin maybe? Which is it going to start with? If it evolved a heart, than it's a useless organ that's just taking up valuable space and resources. Darwin's theory of the fittest claims it dies out. What about blood? Well that's useless too without anything to use it with. So you see, life is so complex that it can't be reduced step-by-step. Heck we can't design cameras as advanced as the human eye. Sure we can magnify it, but that's about it. The brain stores information more reliably, and more solidly than any form of data-storage we've designed.