Amino acids were formed when an electric discharge was passed through some gases above water. This suggests that life must has arose from inanimate matter. No it doesn't.
"Trying to make life by mixing chemicals in a test tube is like soldering switches and wires in an attempt to produce Windows 98. It won't work because it addresses the problem at a wrong conceptual level...How did nature fabricate the world's first digital information processor – the original living cell – from the blind chaos of blundering molecules? How did molecular hardware get to write its own software?" – Paul Davies, in The Guardian, 11th December 2002.
Some of these similarities are
This is an inconclusive argument because the same observations have an alternate explanation: a single Creator. If an engineer finds that one body plan (think of homology), code (think of genetic material) or mechanism (think of ATP and proteins) works, why should he bother to use new ones for every product he makes? A few more points:-
The following observations about homology suggest that it has nothing to do with common ancestry:
Also: The hind limbs and fore limbs of vertebrates are themselves homologous to each other (not just in their bone structure but their embryological development). But no evolutionist uses this as a basis to suggest that hind limbs evolved from fore limbs or that both evolved from a common ancestor. Then why should we conclude from the similar forelimbs of the bat and man that both have a common ancestor?
To summarize: The similarities in organisms are adequately explained as being due to a common designer.
Suppose we constructed a diagram as follows. For each living and extinct species, put a dot. The dots for closely resembling species are close to each other, and the dots for dissimilar species are far from each other. If evolution theory is true, what we expect is a continuous diagram, since every species shares a common ancestor with every other species and evolutionary changes occur smoothly. What do we actually get? Let's find out by considering one class of animals: mammals.
All mammals share several features that other animals don't have:"A hairy integument, each hair being a complex structure of keratinized cuticle, a cortex and a central medulla; mammary glands exhibiting alveoli surrounded by a network of myoepithelial cells responsive to the hormone oxytocin producing milk, a nutricious secretion containing flat globules and sugars, specialized sweat glands in the skin, a four chambered heart with left ventricle delivering aerated blood to the aorta, discrete and reniform kidneys, with nephron form and function specialized to generated a concentrated urine containing a high concentration of urea, a large cerebral cortex with distinctive six layers of cells, a diaphragm, a special muscle used by mammals for respiration; three highly specialized ear ossicles - a mallus, incus and stapes conducting vibrations across the middle ear; the organ of corti, a specialized organ for the reception and analysis of sound." – Michael Denton, Evolution: A theory in crisis; p. 105
Thus, every mammal is fully a mammal, and more or less equidistant from every reptile. Similarly, every reptile is equidistant from every mammal. Thus, our realistic diagram is not continuous; it consists of discrete "islands". Reptiles and mammals form islands. Moreover, these islands are separated by enormous gaps. For instance, no structures are known which can be considered in any sense transitional between hair and any other vertebrate dermal structure. [We also have mini-islands within the islands separated by smaller gaps]
Which features do we take into account to decide whether two given species are similar or dissimilar? There is some subjectivity in this choice, but whatever features we choose, the "island" nature of the diagram persists.Darwin acknowledged that the absence of transitional forms was "the most obvious and serious objection" to evolution theory, but he sought refuge in the "extreme imperfection of the geologic record" - that is, not many fossils had been discovered in his day. [The quotes are from chapter 10 of Origins of Species]. Millions of fossils have been unearthed since Darwin's day and every major class of organisms is now well represented in the fossil record, but as evolutionists themselves have admitted, the gaps between the major groups of organisms remain as wide as ever.
Rather than discuss the few disputed transitional forms and ape-men that evolutionists present in response to the millions needed, I lay the invitation open for you. Show me a transitional form:
The image shows archaeopteryx, whose status has changed several times in the research community.
To summarize the fossil record: there has been ample opportunity for the missing links to show up but they haven't. Moreover, the fossil record has other features that contradict evolution theory.
Not only do we have islands, but these islands are not positioned sequentially like an evolutionist would expect (for instance, the "reptile" island should be between the "amphibian" and "bird" islands). This can be seen from molecular biology as follows. Cytochrome C (CC) is a protein found in almost all organisms. The sequence of amino acids in CC however, varies from species to species. Given two species, the number of positions at which their CC differs (as a percentage of the total number of positions) can be used as a measure of dissimilarity between the two species.
The table shows the percent differences of the CC sequences of various eucaryotic animals from the Rhodospirillum rubrum bacterium. As you can see, all of them are almost equidistant from the bacterium! This totally contradicts the evolutionary idea that microorganisms became cyclostomes, then fish, amphibians, reptiles and then mammals.
Consider another example. The percent sequence difference of four animals from the carp (a fish):-
Thus, mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians are four different islands that are equidistant from the fish island. Evolutionists would have us believe that fish, mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians are five regions on a continuous spectrum.
To summarize: evolution theory predicts a continuous distribution of organisms. Instead, we find that species can be organized into islands with insurmountable gaps. There is continuity within "mini-islands" but discontinuity beyond them. This contradicts evolution theory completely. Evolutionists may draw "trees" connecting these islands, but the branches and nodes of such trees are purely hypothetical. Incidentally, the above observations are perfectly consistent with the Biblical account of God creating certain "kinds" of animals and enabling them to multiply according to their kind.
Some examples of this change are:-
To turn a cell to a human, a huge amount of genetic information has to be generated. In all the above cases, it can be shown that the change shown in the organism is not due to the generation of genetic information in the genome of the organism. Therefore, this is not the kind of change needed to change cells to people. Details
Evolution theory is supposed to explain how new organs arise out of purely natural processes, not how organs lose their function. See S. R. Scadding, "Do vestigial organs provide evidence for evolution?", Evolutionary Theory 5:173-176, 1981.
Evolution is far from conclusively proven. The fossil record does not show the millions of genuine transitional forms that evolution requires. No plausible mechanism for evolution exists. Insurmountable difficulties exist in the rise of life from chemicals. All the facts point toward one possibility: life was created by an intelligent creator. This explanation may not fit into your definition of science, but it is still the most plausible explanation that scientific investigation (and just plain common sense) yields. Die-hard naturalists cannot accept a supernatural cause for anything and so will continue to insist that there must be some way life has evolved (just the details are being debated!) but that is not a wise position, considering the nature of the difficulties as well as the stakes involved.