I'll bite.
Okay, cool.
Just a notice: I'm gonna post this in multiple parts because I don't have the time to amalgamate everything I know about this stuff into one post right now. I'll do this part for now, and I'll post more if people want more. This will probably help compartmentalize discussion too.
One more thing: I am not a scientist, nor have I any science based education beyond high school. There will be times where I have very little idea of what I'm talking about. Still, I stand by my arguments as legitimate, so please consider them as such. I will try to cite sources when I can
be bothered to. If you see that I'm saying something incorrect, do not hesitate to correct me, as some of you, I'm sure, will vigorously and violently do so.
EDIT: I didnt realize this might be necessary, but the ultimate goal for my arguing against Evolution is to discount it as a scientific replacemnt for a creator God.
First, lets lay down the groundwork as to what evolution is. Evolution is the concept of something, usually a life form, changing over time to adapt to its environment. This is usually done through survival of the fittest, in which animals that have certain traits that allow them to live better and longer will pass down their genes, whereas animals that have disadvantageous traits will likely die before they can have children, thus eliminating their genes from the pool of that area.
There are two kinds of evolution:
Microevolution, which Darwin observed of the finches of the Galapagos islands. This kind of evolution pertains to variations within a species. For example, going back to Charles Darwin's observations, on different parts of the Galapagos islands, there are different kinds of foods that a readily available. The finches he observed had different beaks depending on which part of the island he was on, and which foods were available for the finches to eat. This is the result of the natural selection, allowing some birds to live and thrive with certain beaks, and other birds to die. This is immediately observable, and I have no qualms with this kind of evolution, as it obviously exists. The other is
Macroevolution, which scientists believe was the means of development of all modern life. This kind of evolution transcends species, and causes new kinds of life to form. For example, some scientists believe that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Through millions of years of micro evolution and thousands of small changes, we end up with a totally different product. This is the evolution we're dealing with here.
TL;DR, Microevolution is contained to species, Macroevolution transcends species.Alrighty then, lets start at the beginning. The dawn of life on earth.
Now, scientists have conflicting theories of how the matter for life came to earth. Some say it came through meteors or other space debris that pelted the earth as the solar system was still young. In any case, the theory of macroevolution starts with the earth having a pool of organic matter in which form amino acids, which eventually forms DNA, which eventually form cells. Once enough cells form, the eventually bond together and start interacting with each other, giving way to small life forms which eventually grow into progressively bigger and more cohesive life forms until you have something like fish or plants, and then you go on from there.
TL;DR, A pool of organic matter on early Earth mixed with the atmosphere and energy spawned amino acids that spawned DNA, then cells, and eventually, life forms..
The first problem with this theory is how any amino acids form in the first place. After all, they are the building blocks of life, and nothing living is without them. The common reference to how the amino acids formed is famous
"Life in a test tube" experiment, or the Miller-Urey experiment, an experiment that brought Evolution to true prominence in the scientific community. In this experiment, the hypothetical environment of early Earth is simulated in a controlled environment. In a nutshell, various gasses that scientists believe composed early Earth's atmosphere, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen, are put into a bulb with some water. The water is heated and vaporized and sent through a pipe along with the gas mixture into another bulb with two electrodes firing electric sparks between each other, which simulated lightning, which people speculate the energy for the amino acids forming reaction came from. This energy causes a reaction to happen with the gasses, which then bond and de-bond as per the nature of their reaction, and they form amino acids. The amino acids then drop down along with the water vapor into a trap below the electrode bulb, allowing for itself to sit there while more form, while the water to cycles through and the process goes on. Eventually, 20+ amino acids formed in the trap. This experiment is still widely used in arguments for evolution. I'm sure you are have at least a passing familiarity with this experiment, Mr. Ipquarx, whom I hope is still reading.
TL;DR, The Miller-Urey experiment, widely held as the experiment that kicked off the modern study of evolution, formed amino acids by zapping the gasses thought to be the atmosphere of early earth and trapping them in some water.
There are a few problems with this experiment which make it somewhat problematic. I will cite these sites which I draw most of my arguments from up front. Yes, I know that you can tell right from the names that a couple of these are biased sources, but they draw their arguments from very valid and highly accredited sources that they cite so I don't have to cite all of those individually.
http://www.creationbc.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=122&Itemid=62http://creation.com/life-in-a-test-tubehttp://www.astrobio.net/topic/solar-system/earth/geology/earths-early-atmosphere/Right, onward.
The first problem with this experiment is the trap. The trap in the apparatus serves as a sort of resting place for the amino acids so that they can be safe and stationary for observations sake. However, the trap serves a secondary purpose of protecting the amino acids from being destroyed by the electrodes. As you know, energy can just as easily create as it can destroy. If the amino acids are left in the electrode chamber, they are destroyed and are useless. The trap protects them from this, but there is no actual trap on earth that would protect them from the lightning or other energy that caused the reaction in the first place. This would cause the amino acids to be destroyed just as much as, if not more so, than they would be created. There needs to be a lot of amino acids to be present for life to even begin happening, so the odds aren't looking so good for life so far.
TL;DR, The electric energy that causes the amino acids for form can just as easily destroy the amino acids if they're unprotected, which they would be under the hypothetical circumstances.The second problem is with the atmosphere. As of recently, the scientific community agreed that the various gasses that composed early earth had a lot less methane and ammonia than previously thought and instead contained mostly carbon dioxide and nitrogen, much like the atmosphere of our Earth today. This poses a lot of problems with the Miller-Urey experiment, since it was reliant on those gasses being there. There have been experiments done with these gasses, and the resulting amino acids have been much more sparse. Again, the less amino acids there are, the less likely life is to form.
TL;DR, The gasses used in the experiment are now not believed to be the atmosphere of early Earth, making the production of amino acids much harder.The third problem is that the resulting amino acids. Not all amino acids that exist are useful for life. There are specific groups that have nothing to do with forming DNA in cells, but the most prevalent group produced int he Miller-Urey experiment are the L and D amino acids. Every amino acid that was formed in the experiment was formed in pairs, the L and the D, which appear to be mirror images of each other in terms of composition. The problem is that the D amino acids are completely useless in terms of creating life. This, among other eliminating factors, essentially cut the count of useful amino acids in half, which further decreases the odds that any kind of life would emerge from such conditions.
TL;DR, Not all amino acids are useful, and roughly half the amino acids formed in the Miller-Urey experiment would not help in forming life.Essentially, when you consider all of these factors that diminishes the count of potential useful amino acids, you find that it is very unlikely that life could form from the primordial soup that so many believe it did. This is a problem for macroevolution, since this is how life started in the first place according to the theory, and it is partly why I find macroevolution to be so hard to believe.
FINAL TL;DR, The way evolutionary scientists propose that life formed in the first place is extremely unlikely to the point of being implausible. This shows that evolution is fundamentally flawed, as the very origin of life cannot be explained without inconsistency or error.Sorry to hit you guys with a freaking highschool science paper.
