Evolution and abiogenesis are presented to the public under the banner of science. But science is about facts, experimental proofs, and repeatability. Yet there are no facts or repeatable experiments proving life came from nonlife, new beneficial organs appear spontaneously, or creatures transmutate into different and more functionally complex organisms that will not revert to their progenitors.
 
This is not to say there isn't a lot of voice and ink declaring that evolution is an established fact. Here are examples of the proofs that are used.
 
Similarity
 
Similar features are used to prove evolutionary ancestry. But similarity presents more contradictions than evidence.
 
If similarity proved relationship, the beak of the platypus would relate it to the goose, its hair to a bear, the tail to a beaver, webbed feet to a duck, claws to a reptile, spurs on its hind legs to a rooster, venom to a scorpion, and eggs to a snake. It detects prey like an eel, and produces milk but has no nipples. (Platypus fossils date back 167 million years and have the identical features of the present platypus.)

⌕ Click to enlarge

An insect can look like a leaf or stick, but insects are clearly not related to leaves or sticks. Cytochrome C is a biochemical that is similar in the carp, bullfrog, turtle, chicken, rabbit, and horse. But no evolutionary tree shows these creatures related. Human hemoglobin (the red blood cell pigment), is very similar to that in worms and we share about the same number of protein-coding genes. But we are far removed from worms in evolutionary trees. Antigen receptors in camels and nurse sharks are more similar to each other than to creatures in their supposed evolutionary lines. The GULO enzyme is similar in New World and Old World monkeys. However, humans would seem to be more closely related to fruit bats, hamsters, and guinea pigs since we and they are absent GULO enzymes. We share about 50% of our DNA with bananas.
 
Evolution requires a gradation of simple to complex, less to more. Therefore, it would seem that larger, more complex organisms should have more DNA than simpler ones. However, toads and lilies have far more DNA per cell than humans, salamanders have twenty times more, and some insects have twice as much. Based on chromosome count, humans are similar to deer and lower on the evolutionary ladder than chimps.

⌕ Click to enlarge

​Similarities can also be selected to support evolution. But since they can be used to both prove and disprove evolution, they are not a useful argument.
 
Vestigial Organs
 
Evolutionists say that some body parts are useless and only present as leftovers from evolutionary ancestors. Such parts are thus called vestigial.
 
In 1893, Wiedersheim listed 180 such organs. As knowledge has been gained, the list gets whittled down. It should be zero. Lack of understanding of a body part's function doesn't mean it's useless.
 
The belief in vestigial organs has justified countless surgeries to remove them. Sadly, every such surgery removing a non-diseased body part renders the person less healthy in the long term. All parts of the human body have a function. Ignorance of that function doesn't justify surgical pruning.
 
Moreover, if there is a body part with no function or a detrimental one, that would most likely be the result of mutations or other Second Law degenerations of the human genome.
 
The other factor to consider is epigenetics which permits the inhibition or expression of different parts of the genome depending upon the needs. For example, wisdom teeth may have been more important in the past because of a diet requiring more mastication than now. Goosebumps, thought to be a vestige, may have been more important in the primitive past when we had lots of body hair to insulate us and were in constant threat of predation and other violence. The muscles in the skin that cause goose bumps would cause the hair to rise up when we were threatened to make us look bigger and more intimidating, just as occurs in a cat. Now, when threatened, all we get are bumps because clothes obviated our need for lots of body hair. Epigenetics—switching genes on and off—not evolution is at play.
 
Here are some examples of body parts labeled mistakenly as vestigial or unimportant at one time or another, and their subsequent proven functions:
 
•Wisdom teeth—improve mastication
•Body hair—insulates and increases tactile senses
•Tailbones—provide an anchor for muscles, tendons, and ligaments
•Thyroid—secretes thyroid hormones
•Pineal gland—controls growth, sexual, and circadian cycles
•Vomeronasal organ—detects pheromones
•Appendix—part of the immune system
•Tonsils—part of the immune system
•Adenoids—part of the immune system
•Thymus—produces immune elements
 
Notice the last four in that list. Given that no health or healing ever occurs without the immune system, it's unthinkable that doctors lopped off millions of functional immune organs. They justified it with their evolutionary belief in vestigial organs and the presumption that they prevented disease by removing them.
 
Embryology
 
Virtually every textbook attempting to prove evolution will line up the embryological stages of humans and show their similarities to our supposed ancestors. This is called ontogeny (our individual life history) recapitulating phylogeny (our supposed evolutionary history).
 
The drawings originally used to demonstrate this were fudged by Haeckel (1866) to make the evolutionary case.

⌕ Click to enlarge

​If ontology is actually recapitulating phylogeny, then women would miscarry fish, amphibians, reptiles, and sub-human primates. But that never happens.
 
Embryology isn't a memory of the past. It's the succession of stages necessary to create the creature it is designed to be. It would be impossible to develop in the womb from one cell (zygote) into a human without going through transitions that might look like less complex organisms.
 
Archaeopteryx
 
Archaeopteryx is a fossil used to show that birds evolved from dinosaurs. It had feathers like birds and teeth similar to reptiles. However, no intermediaries have been found leading to it or away from it. Nor have any fossils been found showing the evolution of feathers.
 
Archaeopteryx is clearly just a type of bird, a syngameon. It began as an Archaeopteryx and stayed an Archaeopteryx. Moreover, dinosaurs like Velociraptor and Deinonychus are found in rocks of the same age as well as in those 75 million years younger than those containing Archeopteryx. That would make Archaeopteryx and other birds predecessors and contemporaries of dinosaurs, not their evolved progeny.

⌕ Click to enlarge

Horses
 
Various horse-like animals are commonly arrayed in evolutionary trees. The pictures, drawings, and arrows are a fabricated sequence. This is proven by the fact that the fossils of supposed transitional forms can be found out of sync with the evolutionary progression. That means "precursors" are found younger than their "progeny." That's like saying children beget parents.
 
The fossil record of horses shows variety within a kind, or horse-like animals that are kinds (syngameons) in their own right.

⌕ Click to enlarge

Variety Is Not Evolution
 
Variation, such as breeds of horses, dogs, varieties of fruit flies and corn, antibiotic resistance in bacteria, and insecticide resistance by insects should not be confused with the shape-shifting hypothesized in macroevolution, meaning the change of one kind of organism into another.  Variety within a syngameon (kind) is not the same thing as the evolution of new creatures.

⌕ Click to enlarge

Even after hundreds of years of breeding and genetic manipulation, creatures remain essentially the same. Cows stay cows and wheat stays wheat. Each interbreeding syngameon has a finite pool of genes. Size, shape, color, strength, speed, and personality all may vary to a degree in a population as a result of random or directed breeding. If the environment favors a particular variation, that creature and its progeny may fare better and predominate.
 
Nobody disagrees that such variation happens to a degree and that it helps creatures survive. The key word here is degree. Variety, yes; evolutionary transmutation, no.
 
Geneticists constantly try to push the envelope but they always reach a barrier. For example, since the time of Napoleon sugar beets have been selectively bred to increase sugar yield. They're now at about 18% sugar. In spite of the huge economic reward for moving that % higher, the limit of the sugar beet syngameon has apparently been reached.
 
Over 800 different breeds of cattle have been created (all are still cows). Milk production per dairy cow udder has increased three-fold in just the past few decades. Those changes can't be extrapolated to prove that one day a cow will evolve into something that is 99% udder.
 
A Chihuahua is dramatically different in size from a Great Dane or Bulldog. But no amount of breeding will stretch that limit so that dogs cannot be identified as dogs.

⌕ Click to enlarge

Fruit flies will vary the number of bristles between 25 and 56. After over a century of experimentation and hundreds of thousands of generations, that's the limit. Not only that, if the flies are left to interbreed naturally, they'll revert to the original average of 36.
 
Darwin used finches to make his case for speciation (the development of new species). Finches separated geographically had slightly different beaks. He saw this as evidence of natural selection creating new species. However, all of the new finch varieties can interbreed. They're just varieties of one kind of bird syngameon.
 
In just the time since the discovery of the bacterium, E. coli, in the late 1800s, there have been almost five million E. coli generations. But E. coli is still E. coli. The total generations of bacteria since life supposedly first appeared would be trillions upon trillions. Yet they have remained the same. On the other hand, we are to believe, if evolution is true, that humans supposedly evolved from chimp-like creatures in just 300,000 generations.

⌕ Click to enlarge

The Middle, Not the Edge, Is Safe
 
When creatures go out to the extreme edges of their genetic potential, they become sterile and less fit, not more evolved. For example, a mule is a cross between a donkey and a horse but it's usually sterile. Fruit flies with 56 bristles, rather than the average 36, will usually be short-lived and sterile. The genetic drift pressure is always back to the average wild-type—the mutt—not new novel varieties onward and upward in an evolutionary tree.

⌕ Click to enlarge

Natural selection works, but it puts pressure on a population toward the middle, toward home base, not out to the weird and novel genetic edges where evolution needs to take place.

⌕ Click to enlarge

Extrapolation
 
The dictionary definition of evolution makes it easy to conflate the fact that technology, cars, computers, dress, food . . . "evolves," with the extrapolated notion that life has evolved from atoms.

⌕ Click to enlarge

Extrapolation is a wonderful tool of reason and we all use it every day. However, breeding different sizes, shapes, and colors of dogs doesn't prove that dogs came from guppies. Mutating fruit flies into all kinds of freaky fruit flies doesn't prove fruit flies came from stardust or that they will one day evolve into eagles. Biological variation is to evolution as a firefly is to lightning.

⌕ Click to enlarge

Rather than a true account of biology, evolution is a lineup of hopeful extrapolations culminating in a belief that does not logically follow from the facts or the laws that govern the universe.
 
Biological variation is not evolution, it is the mere result of various genetic functions including regulator genes, genetic drift, recombinations, and epigenetics (switching genes on and off) and proves nothing except that creatures can vary, adapt, and be different to a degree based upon existing genetic potential.

⌕ Click to enlarge

The star witness for abiogenesis and evolution never comes forward to nail it. We never actually see any direct proof that life can spontaneously come from nonlife or that creatures can or did evolve into new and distinct creatures with new organs and traits. Instead, there are just speculative extrapolations. That is not science.