The evidence for evolution is really not worth very much and the objections to evolution are indeed quite strong. I will take a living organism's evidence of design over a few bones everytime. Let's look at the following for example:
     
|
How can evolution explain euglena - an organism which is both a plant and an animal and has an eye? Where did it descend from?
How can evolution explain the descent of the Hymenopimesis Wasp - an insect that reproduces itself by almost killing a spider, forcing the spider to build a special web for the eggs and then killing the spider?
How can evolution explain the butterfly - an organism which is essentially born twice?
How can evolution explain the platypus - a mammal which lays eggs, defends itself with a poison spur, has a duck-like bill, an elector censor in the bill, webbed feet, a cloaca, and the ability to vocalize many different sounds?
How can evolution explain the bat's sonar which is better than what our navy has?
How can evolution explain the fugu fish whose genes are so close to man that examining its genome showed us 1,000 genes in humans which the genome project had been unable to find?
The bones could have never told us the unique characteristics of these species. Therefore bones, a terribly reductionist method of comparing species, is unable to show us if species are really descendants of each other. They do not even show us the mode of reproduction of a species in most cases - a terribly important fact needed to prove descent. So yes, the facts against evolution are quite strong and the evidence for it is quite weak, in fact, it does not prove anything.