About all that Darwinist evidence? Refutation number one.

Explantations for information, life, existence and fine-tuning?  None.

Presentation of proofs for macroevolution observed happening?  None.

Large amounts of Darwinist propanda presented?  Yup.

I want to first emphasize the giant hurdles a Darwinist must overcome to explain away all the reasons life could not have happened by chance.  A Darwinist cannot really define life itself as a substance or force but can only identify whether an organism is alive or dead.   Pasteur proved that life only comes from life and scientists of the early 18th Century agreed with this as a scientific law.  Darwinism must break this law but has no evidence for a natural genesis of life and no mechanism has been postulated that can be tested or that even passes the logical smell test.  If natural causes could not bring about life, Darwinism is dead before it is born, since Darwinism is all about naturalistic materialistic causes.

A Darwinist cannot explain his way around the chirality problem when trying to tell a fairy tale about the accidental poofing into existence of DNA.  

A Darwinist cannot even begin to give us a reasonable explanation of photogenesis, which is a remarkably complex process that must have been in place almost immediately within life forms for life forms to have obtained energy from the Sun.  

A Darwinist cannot account for information, which does not have form or substance itself and can only be quantified by enumerating the medium used to transmit it.  Unfortunately one cannot determine either the value or the amount of information by enumerating its containers. 

Furthermore, there is no relationship that can be drawn between the exact size or length or complexity of the gene and the resulting creature.  Here is where math majors have thrown up their hands when trying to convert Darwinism to an equation of some kind.   A mathematical relationship between the perceived complexity of the individual DNA string and the creature it produces does not exist.  If by some remarkable impossibility a primitive DNA string had *poofed* into existence then by Darwinist logic the DNA molecule would have become more complex as the organism became more advanced.  This is not the case.

A Darwinist cannot find an example of macroevolution happening anywhere in the world.  We do see speciation,  in which we see choices made from existing information within the genome rather than new information entering the genome.  We see mutation causing information loss or copying errors but this also does not account for new information.  Every time you hear of a Darwinist trumpeting evolution-in-action, it has always been a simple case of speciation.   

Phylogenic Cladogramic Morphological Darwinidiotic verbiage clogged the comments threads as Darwinists did a great job of re-presenting the same old arguments in which assumptions are applied to the evidence and yet no experiments are successful and no evolution is ever observed.  I did decide to respond to Woolf's arguments that embryology is an evidence of common descent, as he argues that the aortic arch develops in many embryos in the same general way or order.  Now one problem is that again Woolf is making an assumption, he has no proof that similarities in development are not an evidence of a common Designer rather than common ancestry. In point of fact there is no such thing as a consistent linear developmental line of the aorta or the eye or the backbone that is not built on presuppositions.   Richard Dawkins' declaration that the laryngeal nerve in human beings as a remnant of fish ancestry is one such supposition.  In fish the nerve branches off from the main route to supply gills.   In people it branches off to serve other purposes such as the esophagus and trachea. 

Haeckel's imaginary embryo chart was an attempt to fool people into thinking that we all have a common ancestry but it was faked.   The argument about aortic development is part of the larger discussion of embryology.  First off is the idea that Woolf presented that there is a lineage that can be traced from more simple to more complex forms of life by studying the similarities between fossil remains and organisms alive today.   But in real life, the supposed linear aspect of descent is completely imaginary, much like Haeckel's embryo chart.  I present two long and thorough articles that serve to falsify linear or Darwinist descent as well as embryological, vestigal and recapitulation hypotheses.  There is a lot to read but there is a lot of propaganda to debunk:

Mammal-like reptiles: major trait reversals and discontinuities

by John Woodmorappe

Summary

Evolutionists repeatedly claim that their assembled chain of mammal-like reptiles shows a step-by-step morphological progression to mammals. Despite this, a close and simultaneous examination of hundreds of anatomical character traits shows no such thing, even if one takes basic evolutionary suppositions as a given. Very many, if not most, of the pelycosaur and therapsid traits used in recent evolutionistic studies to construct cladograms actually show a contradictory pattern of progression towards, followed by reversion away from, the presumed eventual mammalian condition. Furthermore, gaps are systematic throughout the pelycosaur-therapsid-mammalian ‘sequence’, and these gaps are actually larger than the existing segments of the ‘chain’. These sobering facts demonstrate that, however the supposed evolutionary ‘lineage’ of mammal-like reptiles towards mammals is interpreted, it is divorced from reality.

The so-called mammal-like reptiles are believed by evolutionists to be the ancestors of the mammals and to have become more mammal-like with the passage of time. Evolutionists consider anatomical traits to be mammal-like if they occur in modern mammals but not in other modern vertebrates.
The highly-touted, alleged succession of mammal-like reptiles towards increasing ‘mammalness’ is not found at any one location on Earth. It can only be inferred through the correlation of fossiliferous beds from different continents. Judgments are made as to which stratum on one continent is older than another stratum on another continent. Moreover, intercontinental correlations are made even when the fossil genera do not correspond with each other. Instead, the correlations are based on the general similarity of specimens, as well as their assumed degree of evolutionary advancement.¹ The circularity of such reasoning is obvious. Thus, despite the claims of some evolutionists, it is clear that such biostratigraphic correlations are not empirically self-evident: 

Read the full article here.

~

Clearly the idea of common descent (actually ascent to a Darwinist) is not reflected in the fossil record nor in the organisms now extant.  The storyline of step-by-step development is simply that, an unsubstantiated and almost entirely refuted story. Chapter 16 from the EVOLUTION CRUNCHER book lays waste to another aspect of the idea of linear descent. . . . 

1 - Is this sentence true? "If we had useless organs in our bodies, they would prove degeneration, not evolution."

2 - Select one of the following, and write one or two paragraphs on the importance of it in the human body, why you need it, and how it helps you: (1) tonsils; (2) appendix; (3) coccyx; (4) thymus; (5) Pineal gland; (6) thyroid gland; (7) pituitary; (8) semilunar fold of the eye.

3 - Explain the size problem: why all embryos—human or otherwise—tend to look alike at an early age.

4 - Write a one-paragraph report explaining the importance of one of the following in the developing embryo: (1) "yoke sac," (2) embryonic "tail," (3) "gill slits." Show why they are not what the evolutionists claim them to be.

5 - Prepare a brief biography on Ernst Haeckel, his frauds, and how they were exposed. Go to our website and look at his fraudulent charts.

6 - Select one of the following and explain how it disagrees with the recapitulation theory: (1) development of the human heart, (2) development of the human brain, (3) timing of fetal heart vs. fetal blood vessels.

7 - Explain this sentence: "Why then does the fish embryo have, not only its own fish gills but also the bird yolk sac and the monkey tail?"

EVOLUTION COULD NOT DO THIS

If it was not for the sunbird, the African mistletoe would very quickly die. Yet both have been doing just fine since they were first created. When the sunbird comes to the mistletoe flower, it has to tell the flower to open up! Otherwise it would remain forever closed. Carefully, the bird puts its long bill inside a slit in the flower. This triggers the flower,—and it opens instantly and shoots out its anthers, which hits the bird with pollen all over its feathers. Then the bird goes to the next flower, repeating the process, and pollinating it in the process.
~

The author of the above piece mentions just two examples of organisms that cannot be explained in evolutionary terms.  The Dolphin is an example of irreducible complexity.  The Sunbird-Mistletoe combination is an example of a symbiotic relationship.   The question is not, which came first, the chicken or the egg?  The question is also the Sunbird or the Mistletoe, the tubeworm or the bacteria and on and on for thousands of different examples.   There are entire ecosystems that depend upon a kind of bacterial- tubeworm symbiosis such as:

Endosymbioses between bacteria and deep-sea siboglinid tubeworms from an Arctic Cold Seep (Haakon Mosby Mud Volcano, Barents Sea).

Lösekann T, Robador A, Niemann H, Knittel K, Boetius A, Dubilier N.

Max Planck Institute for Marine Microbiology, Celsiusstrasse 1, Bremen 28359, Germany.

Abstract

Siboglinid tubeworms do not have a mouth or gut and live in obligate associations with bacterial endosymbionts. Little is currently known about the phylogeny of frenulate and moniliferan siboglinids and their symbionts. In this study, we investigated the symbioses of two co-occurring siboglinid species from a methane emitting mud volcano in the Arctic Ocean (Haakon Mosby Mud Volcano, HMMV): Oligobrachia haakonmosbiensis (Frenulata) and Sclerolinum contortum (Monilifera). Comparative sequence analysis of the host-specific 18S and the symbiont-specific 16S rRNA genes of S. contortum showed that the close phylogenetic relationship of this host to vestimentiferan siboglinids was mirrored in the close relationship of its symbionts to the sulfur-oxidizing gammaproteobacterial symbionts of vestimentiferans. A similar congruence between host and symbiont phylogeny was observed in O. haakonmosbiensis: both this host and its symbionts were most closely related to the frenulate siboglinid O. mashikoi and its gammaproteobacterial symbiont. The symbiont sequences from O. haakonmosbiensis and O. mashikoi formed a clade unaffiliated with known methane- or sulfur-oxidizing bacteria. Fluorescence in situ hybridization indicated that the dominant bacterial phylotypes originated from endosymbionts residing inside the host trophosome. In both S. contortum and O. haakonmosbiensis, characteristic genes for autotrophy (cbbLM) and sulfur oxidation (aprA) were present, while genes diagnostic for methanotrophy were not detected. The molecular data suggest that both HMMV tubeworm species harbour chemoautotrophic sulfur-oxidizing symbionts. In S. contortum, average stable carbon isotope values of fatty acids and cholesterol of -43 per thousand were highly negative for a sulfur oxidizing symbiosis, but can be explained by a (13)C-depleted CO(2) source at HMMV. In O. haakonmosbiensis, stable carbon isotope values of fatty acids and cholesterol of -70 per thousand are difficult to reconcile with our current knowledge of isotope signatures for chemoautotrophic processes"

But it is not just cold seeps but also hot seeps and sometimes sulphur, sometimes methane.  Both ecosystems exist without the power of the Sun and there is no explanation for how they might have evolved.  Most life on Earth depends upon the ability of plants to photosynthesize and yet photosynthesis is so involved it is preposterous to think that it simply *poofed* into existence and yet plant life is necessary for virtually every other life form on the planet with the exception of the entirely unrelated seep ecosystems found under the sea. 

Again, no Darwinists can answer the first, hard questions but so far have shown nothing but an inclination to regurgitate the same old cladograms and phylogenic junk that is all suppositional, based on circular reasoning and cannot be presented as objective, testable, repeatable evidence.

Creationists say that kinds reproduce according to kind, that speciation is an expected result of pre-existing information within the genome and redundancies that are built in to the cell and DNA.  And as it happens that is testable AND repeatable.  

Darwinism began when we knew almost nothing about the makeup of the cell and the process of reproduction.  Now that we can analyze the DNA string and observe the cell at the molecular level the design and complexity are quite obvious.   Thus, the complete lack of observable evidence presented within the comments threads by Darwinist commenters.  They have nothing to present!