That starts out bad and gets worse.
1. The "warm little pond" theory
1. The evolutionary theory does not address the origins of life.
“It is no valid objection that science as yet throws no light on the far higher problem of the essence or origin of life” (Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species. 6th edition, 1882. p. 421
2.The supposed simplicity of the cell
2. Cells are complex now, that doesn't meand the first cells had to be complex. There's this theory you may have heard of called "evolution".
3.His ideas about the information inside the cell
3.
Make up a claim, attribute it to Darwin, prove claim wrong. All in a days work for a lying creationist
4. His expectation of intermediate fossils
4. More blatant lies. Our understanding of the fossil record is very good - not perfect, but considering how rare it is for an animal to become a fossil and how fragile they are, we're lucky to have as many good ones as we do.
5. His failure to see the limits of variation of species
5.Yet more blatant lies - species getting differentiated has been observed both in the fossil record and in the lab. As an example, sheep are a separate species (can no longer be interbred) with a mouflon, which they were descended from.
6. His discounting of the Cambrian explosion
6."there is still no evolutionary mechanism that can satisfactorily explain the sudden appearance of so many completely different life-forms" - Sure, if you discount punctuated equilibrium, which explains exactly that. Also, expecting Darwin to have an answer for something which wasn't really understood until after his death is dishonest
7. His theory of homology
7.I'm just gonna let this failure of logic stand on its own: "Darwin says similarities between animals is evidence for evolution, but I think it was because God was lazy".
8. His theory of human beings evolving from apes
8.Again, just stating a part of the theory of evolution and then saying "I disagree with that" is not an argument, unless you can show why you think it was wrong. Also, both apes and humans evolved from an ape-like ancestor, humans didn't evolve from modern apes.
9.His theory of the tree of life
9.Speciation again. It's as wrong as it was in #5. What, you couldn't think up ten lies, so you just used one of them twice? that's pretty pathetic.
10. His rejection of biblical creation by God
10.Again; "I disagree with Darwin, therefore he was wrong. No, I don't need any evidence to support my views."
A weak list even by the lax standards of creationism. Not that I was really expecting something rational or intellectually honest. There's this undercurrent of "If I can prove Darwin was wrong about something, I've demolished evolution!" running through the whole list, which just increases the amount of fail. Why would it matter even if he was wrong? how would that disprove 150 years of scientific discovery that back up evolution?
The name of the article is "10 Ways Darwin Got It Wrong". Although closely related to the theory of evolution it's not necessarily focused on that.
Darwin speculated:
" It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are present, which could ever have been present. But if (and Oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."
His speculation was certainly wrong and since Darwin didn't mind offering his opinion it's completely fair to show where he was mistaken.
In fact mouflon as a species are disappearing due to INTERBREEDING WITH SHEEP.
Mouflon ARE sheep.
So tell us again about, “”5.Yet more blatant lies” !!!!!!
It's difficult to argue with a proposition that has no chance of being proved or disproved.
But again Darwin was wrong in his assumptions about cells. With his limited knowledge he made best guess which didn't hold up under scientific scrutiny. Why you're defending it is a mystery.
From the article about cells:
• Information processing, storage and retrieval.
• Artificial languages and their decoding systems.
• Error detection, correction and proofreading devices for quality control.
• Digital data-embedding technology.
• Transportation and distribution systems.
• Automated parcel addressing (similar to zip codes and UPS labels).
• Assembly processes employing pre-fabrication and modular construction.
• Self-reproducing robotic manufacturing plants.
It's like me looking at the outside of a car and not understanding how its technology works. I might envision that it's powered by a squirrel on a treadmill chasing nuts. The guess itself isn't bad considering my limited knowledge of modern technology, but it's naive and simplistic to think that it has any basis in reality.
Nonsense. The article clearly detailed Darwin's theory of pangenesis.
From wiki:
"Pangenesis itself is now seen as deeply flawed and not supported by observation, yet it represents Darwin's attempt to explain such diverse phenomena as:"
So again, Darwin was wrong from the get go in his theory about how information was carried and transmitted in cells.
Mouflon are considered a sub-species. They have and do successfully interbreed with both modern domesticated sheep as do bighorn sheep.