As I've said over and over again, the claimed "evidence" for evolution is on par with all of these subjects which also had "evidence" supporting them:

(1) The evidence that amalgam (mercury-based) dental fillings don't leak mercury (yes this was the original claim of the ADA)

(2) The evidence that the amount of mercury vapor that escapes from amalgam fillings is inconsequential (another claim by the ADA)

(3) The evidence that NutraSweet (aspartame) is safe when in fact ALL THREE components of it are toxic

(4) The evidence that tomatoes are poisonous (see the tomato effect)

(5) The evidence that mercury in vaccines has no relationship to autism or other diseases

(6) and on and on.

The "evidence" for evolution is presented the very same way by the same establishment-scientific-community which forbids you to work in most scientific fields if you don't believe their religion (talk about "intolerance").

Anyone who wants to see my position on why evolution is false can search this forum for the roulette wheel example and the ruleset posts.

Now, the propaganda machine is right in front of your eyes as they redefine evolution to "natural selection":

http://urlbam.com/ha/M000Z

(But again, for those who don't want to see it will be blind regardless of the evidence that is presented.)

And why are they doing this?

To save face.

People are FINALLY becoming aware of just how corrupt the established "scientific" community is that they are now questioning, and to have such a stupidly-ridiculous idea as soup-to-man evolution being included in their religion would surely cause their downfall.

So, they are redefining "evolution" to save face, that is, to save their failing religion.

Now, the fact is, there is order in the universe that can be explained by natural processes (existing rules or "laws" of physics) such as the growth of crystals or smooth sand on the seashore.

But, these underlying rules cannot account for a rise from soup to life, and neither can they account for a change from cell-to-man (talking about natural selection here) which I'll deal with in a minute.

Why?

Because of fragility and irreducible complexity.

Beneficial mutations cannot cause complex subsystems to form in a single step, so you—as an evolutionist—would have to accept the idea that small parts of these subsystems would form first and then mutate into further complex-subsystems.

Two problems with this idea are:

(1) The small non-complex mutations that are becoming part of a complex system would certainly be a harmful, useless mutation and would be selected out long before it ever had a chance to develop more complexity.

(2) Math. (see below)

If it takes 1,000,000 harmful mutations to form a part of what will become a complex subsystem later (and for some strange reason it is not selected out), we now have a situation where there is a much stricter requirement about what type of mutation will be "beneficial".

Why?

Because the first "part" of the "developing" complex machine has a much smaller range of attributes (or "designs") that would constitute a "beneficial" mutation to itself. For this reason, we can no longer say that it will only take 1,000,000 (a very conservative number of begin with) mutations to come up with a beneficial mutation. Now that we have the first "part" of the coming complex subsystem, it may take 1,000,000 times 1,000,000 mutations to come up with the second "part" of the machine.

Thats 1,000,000 x 1,000,000 or 1,000,000,000,000.

Now, lets say that the second "part" of the complex machine did form. Now there is a much narrower range of mutations that could be considered "beneficial" for the next part of the subsystem to form, not to mention that the likelihood that the current state of the mutation is beneficial with these two parts hanging off is far less likely than even than it is with the first original "part".

So, now lets say that this DID occur for the sake of argument. The third part that needs to be created has to be within an even (much) narrower specification in order to be considered "beneficial", so in this case, it's likely that the number of mutations necessary to form a "part" of the developing system would be (VERY VERY CONSERVATIVELY) 1,000,000 times more specified.

So now, we are dealing with a chance factor that looks like this:

1,000,000,000,000 x 1,000,000 or 1,000,000,000,000,000,000

And now that we have these three mutation hanging off this organism, what are the chances that it is even remotely beneficial in its current state.

Think about this for a second. Can you design a machine with even 100 parts that is fully functional with only 1 part, and then with only 2 parts, and then with only 3 parts, all the way up to 100?

OK, so now let's get to the fourth part, then the fifth, sixth, all the way to the one-hundredth part. Do you know what kind of number we would have as a chance factor?

Do you know how narrow the specifications for the last part would be? Needless to say, VERY, because the unlikelihood of just the right kind of mutation to complete the subsystem increases multiplicatively (or much more likely factorially) along the way. (My estimates in this post have been conservative to give evolution a broad edge.)

Also, what are the chances that every single step along the course of the construction of this machine the unfinished "part" would be considered "beneficial" and would not be selected out?

You see, when you look carefully at this situation, its becomes exactly what I've called it all along:

Positively ridiculous.