Oh, I see, you want me to present your case for you.
again - I'm going to do several posts - some information that several others apparently 'could not be bothered with' from www.creationscience.com Part 1. Part 1 contains more than 1-2 anomolies with TOE (so don't shoot the messenger). This site is well researched. Anytime you see the lowercase letter (these subscripts do not appear above/below the line due to copy/paste problems) they provide more information to other books and articles.
Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the law of biogenesis. The theory of evolution conflicts with this scientific law when claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes.
While Mendel’s laws give a theoretical explanation for why variations are limited, broad experimental verification also exists.a For example, if evolution happened, organisms (such as bacteria) that quickly produce the most offspring should have the most variations and mutations. Natural selection would then select the more favorable changes, allowing organisms with those traits to survive, reproduce, and pass on their beneficial genes. Therefore, organisms that have allegedly evolved the most should have short reproduction cycles and many offspring. We see the opposite. In general, more complex organisms, such as humans, have fewer offspring and longer reproduction cycles.b Again, variations within existing organisms appear to be bounded.
Organisms that occupy the most diverse environments in the greatest numbers for the longest times should also, according to macroevolution, have the greatest potential for evolving new features and species. Microbes falsify this prediction as well. Their numbers per species are astronomical, and they are dispersed throughout practically all the world’s environments. Nevertheless, the number of microbial species are relatively few.c New features apparently don’t evolve.
An offspring of a plant or animal has characteristics that vary, often in subtle ways, from its “parents.” Because of the environment, genetics, and chance circumstances, some of these offspring will reproduce more than others. So a species with certain characteristics will tend, on average, to have more “children.” In this sense, nature “selects” genetic characteristics suited to an environment—and, more importantly, eliminates unsuitable genetic variations. Therefore, an organism’s gene pool is constantly decreasing. This is called natural selection.a
Notice, natural selection cannot produce new genes; it only selects among preexisting characteristics. As the word “selection” implies, variations are reduced, not increased.b
For example, many mistakenly believe that insect or bacterial resistances evolved in response to pesticides and antibiotics. Instead,
• a previously lost capability was reestablished, making it appear something evolved,c
• a mutation reduced the binding ability, regulatory function, or transport capacity of certain proteins,
• a damaging bacterial mutation or variation reduced the antibiotic’s effectiveness even more,d or
• a few resistant insects and bacteria were already present when the pesticides and antibiotics were first applied. When the vulnerable insects and bacteria were killed, resistant varieties had less competition and, therefore, proliferated.e
While natural selection occurred, nothing evolved and, in fact, some biological diversity was lost.
The variations Darwin observed among finches on different Galapagos islands is another example of natural selection producing micro- (not macro-) evolution. While natural selection sometimes explains the survival of the fittest, it does not explain the origin of the fittest.f Today, some people think that because natural selection occurs, evolution must be correct. Actually, natural selection prevents major evolutionary changes.g