And what, specifically, are these difficulties? ANd how have you researched their irreconcilability with evolution?
For starters, I find the argument from complexity to have merit. A system comprising numerous dependent parts and requiring all of them for a reproductive advantage would be difficult to evolve through random mutation and natural selection.
Proponents of evolution often endeavor to hypothesize ways in which such systems could evolve through a series of intermediate steps, which brings me to my second objection: the universality of certain traits which may provide a reproductive advantage, but a very tiny one. For an example, try this experiment. Stand with your head facing straight forward, with your eyes looking ahead. Now slowly rotate your head at the neck while trying to keep your eyes pointed straight forward relative to your head. (This means that if your head is rotated 20 degrees to the left, your eyes will be pointed at 20 degrees to the left relative to your body.) As the angle of rotation increases, you'll find this becomes difficult. Your eyes "want" to rotate in their sockets the same direction as your neck, so while your head is oriented 35 degrees in one direction, your eyes will be looking at 40 degrees or so.)
This tendency is hardwired into us, and it is undeniably an advantage... it means that if you want to look at something on your periphery you'll be able to see it a fraction of a second faster than you would otherwise. But how much of a reproductive advantage does it confer? An organism with this tendency would survive an encounter with a predator that an organism without it would not if the predator approaches from a very specific angle. If the angle of approach is too shallow, an organism would see it coming even without the tendency, and if it's too deep an organism wouldn't see it coming even with the tendency. So on the average, what would the reproductive rate of the organisms with the tendency be over the organisms without it? A ratio of 1.00001 : 1? And yet the tendency is universal. How many generations would it take for a trait conferring such a minuscule advantage to become universal?
And again, this goes to all the attempts to argue against irreducible complexity by positing long strings of incremental advantage. The smaller the advantage, the longer it would take to spread. Stack a few dozen (or a few hundred) additional incremental improvements on top of that and the likelihood of the chain happening in only a few hundred million years becomes infinitesimal.
I'd also really like to know how proponents of evolution jive their theory with increasing evidence that homosexuality is a genetic trait. One would think that a trait providing such an enormous reproductive disadvantage would be wiped out in a heartbeat, on an evolutionary scale.
This is not to say that the theory that random mutation and natural selection were the sole factors shaping life is false. It may well be true. But it's certainly not proven and it certainly diserves critical scrutiny. And in a large part of the scientific mainstream, it doesn't get it. It is, as I said, treated as a religion... with heretics ostracized, ridiculed, and shunned.
ANd how have you researched their irreconcilability with evolution?
DURRRRRR I opened my Bible, of course. Haven't you heard that anybody who dares to question the orthodoxy of evolution is an imbecilic unscientific Bible-thumper?