Wani said:
Let's see... Things that refute evolution...
Welcome to the forums new guy.
Firstly, Charles Darwin (I'm sure you all know who he is) stated that it's not true. I mean, if he came up with the idea...
If you're talking about a deathbed recantion, then you have been lied to. The story would be irrelevant even if true. The theory of evolution rests upon reams of evidence from many different sources, not upon the authority of any person or persons.
Even ICR and AIG agree that even if he recanted it does not make a good argument against evolution.
My next one comes from a little reptile called a "tuatara". It's an endangered specials in New Zealand, but you should be able to find something about it. Why am I bringing it up? You see, it's been around for 65 million years. At least. They have found tuatara fossils that are as old as dinosaur fossils.
So how come it hasn't changed in 65 million years, yet we've managed to come thus far from rats in that time?
Just because one animal changes a great deal, doesn't mean that everything does. The theory of evolution does not say that organisms must evolve morphologically, in fact, in an unchanging environment, stabilizing selection would tend to keep an organism largely unchanged. Many environments around today are not greatly different from environments of millions of years ago.
Also some fossil species have evolved significantly. Cockroaches, for example, but also the fact that
punctatus punctatus and
Sphenodon guntheri have speciated from your Tuatara is evidence that speciation has happend. Also, I'm not entirely sure if the fossil Tuatara are entirely the same as the ones millions of years ago, but I have to study them more before I make claims on that.
And also the chance of those chemicals coming together in the exact right way to make an organism is very low. VERY low.
You are assuming that the protein molecule formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces complex products, and the products themselves interact in complex ways. How can you even calculate something nobody even knows what it looks like? I mean we have never seen the most primitive cells, so what is the point?
Oh and I thought you were giving us evidence against evolution? This is abiogenesis, a completely diffrent theory then evolution.