Evolution

* Please excuse any spelling or grammar errors, I do not intend to proofread this post.

Well, I was planning on writing about something completely different right  now, but I'm writing about evolution and here is why: for whatever reason, blogger will not let me change my default email from my stupid old hotmail address to my new and decidedly more professional rocketmail one. So, every couple of months I have to log into the hotmail one to see if I have anything important. Well, upon opening my inbox, I discovered a comment on one of my posts that I hadn't see before, inquiring as to why I dislike the theory of evolution. I feel obliged to answer. 

To begin, I wish to be completely clear. I am not a creationist. I am not a creationist. My opinions on this matter are not in any way influenced by the religion that I do or do not practice (I do not, incidentally). This is a conclusion that I have come to after a fair study of the subject. I do not have an alternate explanation for the existence of life, I simply believe that evolution is not a satisfactory one. Throughout history, science as a whole has shown a tendency to cling to outdated and practically-disproved theories until a more logical one can be adopted, and we are in such a transitional period now. They must always have an explanation, even if it is riddled with holes. Furthermore, the manner in which evolution is taught in our schools angers me profusely. One of the first things you learn in science is the difference between hypotheses, theories, and laws. You learn that a theory is an assertion made to explain an event or phenomenon. Then you proceed to be taught the theory of evolution, with all of the facts to prove it, and none of the many facts against it. As a theory, evolution should be treated as one, and not as the word of god (nice pun, right?). Here is why I am of this opinion:

First off, lets go back to Darwin. Darwin believed that by the near future, man would have the necessary fossil record to prove his theory, and he would have been right if the amount of fossils needed actually existed. It doesn't. Darwin had about 15% of it when he proposed his theory. Today, we have less than 20%, even at the vastly faster rate that we now excavate archeological sites. What does this tell you? Basically that we have thousands of "missing links", and the situation isn't improving. Furthermore, the majority of these so called "missing links" that they do find are in fact simply species that went extinct thousands of years ago, and in no way some sort of transitional life form.  Also, most highly touted missing links are eventually proven to be frauds or inaccurate evaluations, which receive much less media attention after being debunked. Take for example the revolutionary Archaeopteryx fossil, which was later discovered to be imprinted with chicken feathers, thus bridging the gap between dinosaur and bird.

Secondly, it is a scientific fact that DNA cannot experience an increase in genetic information. Evolution requires an increase in genetic information. That is really all that needs to be said. 

Third off, science has no remotely possible explanation for the initial creation organic material from inorganic material, or life from nothing, put plainly. I will explain this with the aid of a quote: 

" The smallest single-cell creature has millions of atoms forming millions of molecules that must each be arranged in an exact pattern to provide the required functions. The cell has an energy-producing system, a protective housing, a security system to let molecules into and out of the housing, a reproductive system, and a central control system. "

Now take that into consideration, and tell me that it simply appeared from a universe devoid of anything remotely resembling it's complexity. The evolutionists will tell you it did, and I find that fact immensely irresponsible. 

Now on to my fourth point. One also learns in science that a Law is a scientific fact that cannot be disproved. The second law of thermodynamics states that organization cannot flow from chaos, and there are no facts to disprove this. Therefore, an organism cannot simply reorganize itself to become more complex. The theory of evolution, flimsy as it is, cannot disprove the second law of thermodynamics. 

Point number five: fixed chromosome count. Every species has a fixed chromosome count. If an organisms is born with an abnormality, missing a chromosome or gaining one, it cannot successfully breed. Therefore, how could its unique trait be passed on? It can't. Any "evolutionary" change that could possibly be present in an organism cannot be successfully transferred, creating a new species. Furthermore, scientists who have run tests on microorganisms that reproduce thousands of times faster than humans have failed to witness any evolutionary change, after years of introducing adverse conditions that should accordingly spur them to evolve. 

I will not go any further. These are the most easily understandable and briefly states points that I have the patience to illustrate. I could type for another hour about the fallacy of vestigial structures, the inaccuracy of carbon dating, the inconsistency in the biological time-line in comparison to archeological facts, so on and so forth until you get bored and stop reading. So, there is my proof. That is what I believe. No amount of scientific jargon and sophism learned in AP Biology will convert me. I honestly don't care what you think, but apparently someone did care what I thought, so there you have it.