1. Possibly the most prominent of all issues with the naturalist theory of evolution is origins. While there may be arguable scientific evidence to support certain aspects of evolution, evolutionists still lack an answer to the most important question: where did we come from? The elusive "big bang theory" is the most well-known evolutionist attempt to explain the origin of the universe. However, this faces a huge scientific problem. The big bang theory essentially states that particles of elements rubbed together in space and the friction created an explosion that resulted in the universe. This still fails to explain where those original elements came from, though. The only possible explanation (outside of a creator, of course) is the idea of spontaneous generation. Minor problem: the idea that life can arise from non-life was disproved years ago by Louis Pasteur. Hence, the evolutionists still lack a proper explanation of the origins of the universe
2. Another huge problem with evolution is the immense complexity of life. One phrase used in our UTT textbook is "irreducible complexity," which refers to the idea that there are certain structures in nature and in the human body that could not exist in a simpler form than they currently do. For instance, the flagellum of bacteria is run by an incredibly complex intracellular motor with 40 completely necessary parts. If any one of these was removed, the flagellar motor would not be simpler, it would simply be dysfunctional. There is no space for the tiny steps required by evolution in this structure. Regarding complexity in general, there are huge problems as well. The cell is an incredible structure, its own city inside a cellular membrane, with many parts working together to make the cell functional and to keep it alive. Without any one of these parts, the cell would cease to exist. Furthermore, the DNA responsible for the generation of the cell in the first place is an unbelievably complex system of nucleotides that, if even one is off, the entire cell could cease to function. Even the production of proteins, from 20 different amino acids, is so precise that if even one acid is assembled incorrectly, the protein will denature and be useless. Now, with consideration to the incredibly small odds of evolution, how likely is it that, with unimaginably minuscule odds and this insane level of complexity, that life in its functionality and completeness could exist today as we know it?
3. The third major problem is the idea of natural selection and the passage of certain traits from parent to child. While natural selection is a completely valid idea (it is undeniable that with environmental changes, certain types and variations of species will thrive and others will suffer), natural selection has never been proven further than that short explanation. What evolution lacks is an example of natural selection creating a different species, or causing any lasting change. For instance, the Galapagos finches are good examples of natural selection on a basic level, but, in regards to evolution, there are two problems: 1. The finches are still finches. No change of species occurred. 2. After droughts or periods of rainfall ended, the population of finches returned to their normal distribution of beak size, and any variation's advantage was removed. Essentially, micro-evolution is a valid and provable theory, but macro-evolution lacks any scientific evidence or even logical explanation as to its validity.
