1. Now, to begin with i will plainly admit that some of the examples cited by certain creationists such as the complexity of the Bombardier beetle and the intricate chemical reactions involved seemed as if it were compelling evidence to challenge the evolutionary theory. However, when viewed against the backdrop of the overwhelming independent, neutrally gathered data in favor of it, i'm afraid that there cannot be any serious challenge to it using scientifically acceptable methods.
2. It is possible to contend that natural selection is not the sole principle involved, but the fact that organisms have evolved, is a very hard one to dispute credibly. Take, for example the information shown by DNA, why is there a 95 per cent similarity shown between humans and chimpanzees,
3. which is greater than humans and say, any other animal form?
4. Why is there a common lettered code between all organisms at all?
5. Then there is the fossil record. It seems curious that at a certain fixed depth in the vertical geological column, all fossils are similar and vary as you go higher or lower.
6. The very existence of the skeletal remains of creatures in the depths of the earth which are no longer found today strongly supports the idea of a slow, gradual change over time.
7. Moreover, biologists agree that descent with modification is one of the most readily established facts in science. DNA sequences aside, the shared sets of bio chemical and morphological traits amongst species, plus the fact that it is possible to sub divide organisms into 'families' (mammals, reptiles, birds etc) all logically point toward a common ancestry of each of the said groups, and it is'nt really much of a stretch to ascertain a common descent between all living organisms from there.
8. I will assert, though that the theological implications of all this have been overrated. It is very much possible, at least to my mind for there to have been a guiding force which caused the conditions which allowed this evolution to occur. In conclusion, i will reiterate that the evidence is in favor of common ancestry of species and of descent with modification in response to environmental changes over the slow, gradual process of millions of years and thus the burden of proof is with the skeptics to prove otherwise.
9. EDIT: I'd just like to add, simply because species have not been observed to change into new species after birth does'nt falsify evolution. Any more than the fact that we cannot use a measuring tape to measure the distance between our planet and the stars makes parallax false etc.
1. This is merely your own opinion
2. There are many faults with this "evidence". Firstly the extent of the changes presented are not evaluated. A creature with lots of superficial changes will be the alike than a creature with a small amount of changes of which each one have a dynamic impact. The fact that the amount of change per DNA variance is not measured means that the "95%" is measured on an arbitrary scale.
Furthermore the way this % is derived defies science and utilises evolutionary assumptions which would invalidate its use as evidence. When DNA is analysed, gaps are inserted in the DNA to ensure that there is MORE similarity. The justification of such gaps is because evolution is assumed to have occurred therefore some changes in the DNA would have occured over time... Whilst this may seem logical, such a thing would mean that using this as evidence of evolution is circular reasoning since you needed to assume evolution in order to justify inserting gaps.
Also when you insert these gaps they are arbitrarily inserted in relevance only to the other species you are comparing that DNA to. I did an experiment, I had DNA A and compared it to DNA B, C, D and E and then I compared DNA A with DNA X, Y, Z... Both DNA A's looked totally different due to different gap insertions.. Now how do we know which alignment was true? Which is correct? What this shows is that the DNA alignment process arbitrary increases the amount of similarity between the DNA analysed. Therefore invalidating such "evidence"...
3. Mice are claimed to be 85% similar.... Yet are on a totally different lineage to apes / humans.. A worm is 75% similar.... Perhaps this is due to the common design mechanisms within each creature.. ie- all creatures have cells, all creatures use glucose as a source of fuel etc. Common features also infer common design
4. Common features also infer common design...
5. Actually its curious that according to the fossil record multicelluar life just "appeared" out of nowhere. You do realise that your claim here is based on the evolutionary assumption that
i) the layers are an account of time
ii) the first instance of an organism is when it "evolved".... who is to say that it existed before and just wasn't fossilised.
6. Actually skeletal remains is only evidence of death.... Fullstop.. Unless you have remains depicting each and every tiny change from one to another and have proof that these fossils do have a common lineage, then perhaps you'd have some evidence. Sadly evolutionists claim this is asking for too much and whine about it.
7. What Biologists publish is their own view, all people are biased, I am and I'll be a scientist soon. You need to realise that being a scientist doesn't make that person infallible, nor does it make their words golden. You need to do some critical thinking for yourself rather than accept all people tell you. I did and that is why I am a critic of evolution on the basis of science.
8. Actually there is no evidence for evolution once you take away the assumptions one needs to make to believe in it. Science is based on empirical experiment not on assumption.
If you want proof that evoution is not true then here is one.
Cellular respiration is a complex process, one that cannot have evolved due to
i) the inter-linking of requirements (glycolysis, the citric acid cycle and the electron transport chain all require one another)
ii) the fact this process is required for energy in the simplest organism, meaning there is no pre-cursor to its use, it is required in the first instance of life
Now Darwin himself said that if it could be demonstrated that there was something that could not have come about by a bit-by-bit process then his "theory" (actually model), would crumble....
Here is the evidence, it is known to all scientists... why do they persist in evolution when Darwin said his theory would crumble? Perhaps there is an emotional attachment to this. Atheists do not want to believe in anything else, so will hold on despite that evolution has already been falsified.