Hi,
Obviously, many of the points have already been addressed, but here's my 2c:
>First of all, there are so many amazing organisms that do
>miraculous things! How could they've evolved from
>something else?
Through numerous, small, incremental steps. You don't jump from no eyes to the vertebrate eye; you go though photosensitive patches, to cup-eyes, to pinhole eyes, to a full lens/retina system.
>Secondly, Darwin said IF his hypothesis was correct our
>geological column would be FULL of intermediate links.
>Evolutionists only have a couple HIGHLY questionable ones
>like Archaeopteryx & Australopithecus afarensis. You would
>think if creatures evolved evolutionists would have several
>good fossils.
It is full of intermediates, or "transitional fossils". Here are some examples:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
However, the "transitional forms" issue is one often siezed upon by creationists *because* it is actually insoluble: if you have two organisms, A and C, then you can argue that we should find one (B) between them. If we manage to find a fossil of B, the it has just doubled the problem, because anti-evolutionists can now ask for intermediates between A and B, and between B and C.
> Third, how do you explain structural homology?
This is one of the main arguments *for* evolution, not against it.
>We now know more about genetics.
>You cant add genetic information! The only way it could
>occur is through mutation but thats a lot of mutation
It is simple to add information. One potential mechanism is called "gene duplication": if a portion of DNA (containing one or more genes) is accidentally copied twice during DNA replication (an "insertion mutation") then you suddenly have 2 copies of those genes. Those genes can then evolve seperately within the organism - and you now can have a new protein, and therefore more genetic information. An excellent example of this is yota-crystallin in the lens of the diurnal gecko. Geckos are nocturnal, and - as a result - have lost the ability to blink (as it would cut out important light; instead they lick their eyeballs clean). One gecko species - the diurnal gecko - has reverted to being diurnal. Unable to blink, it cannot shield its eyes from excessive UV light during the day, and this risks damaging its retina. However, a gene duplication event meant that this gecko has two copies of the gene for a retinol-binding protein; one copy has continued to be expressed in the blood, while the other became expressed in the lens (as yota-crystallin). It just happens that this protein is yellow in colour, and can therefore act as "sunglasses" in the lens - filtering out UV light. So this diurnal gecko now has two retinol-binding proteins, one acting as it always has (allowing uptake of vitamin A), and the other as a UV filter. See Werten et al, ('00) PNAS USA, Vol. 97, No. 7, pp 3282-3287.
And lots of time (i.e. - geological timescales) means lots of mutations are possible. We can observe fairly dramatic evolution even within a human lifetime (antibiotic resistance in bacteria, speciation events in fruitflies), so geological times can produce even more dramatic changes.
>Molecular Biology? Not much evidence there either. You'd
>have to ignore 99% of the data and believe 1% of it.1% of
>data agrees with macroevolution!
Not true. 99% of molecular biological evidence *supports* evolution.
As an example: all organisms use the same codons for the same 20 amino acids (so GUU *always* codes for Valine, and never any other amino acid). Why should this be the case, except that we all evolved from an ancestor that used those codons? In fact, it would be an *advantage* to not have the same codons across speciaes, as it would prevent viruses from cross-infecting different species (as their genes would code for different proteins in different host cells, and they'd be unable to assemble their viral proteins).
>And why arent creatures still evolving? Why?
Just see my examples of antibiotic resistance, and speciation in drosophila flies to see that this is just *not* true.
>You could assume that bat and man are related b/c of their
>similarities in their forearms. You see, if structual homology
>was the result of common ancestry, it should show up in the
>genetic codes of the organisms that posses similar
>structures. Yeah the forearms of bats, man and porpoise all
>might be similar but that means the DNA should also be
>similar.
And it *is* indeed similar. Retinoic acid is the morphogen that is responsible for a lot of the embryonic patterning of the limb in *all* vertebrates. It's just slight differences in the patterning of receptors, and transcriptuion factor responses that causes the different limb morphologies. But the proteins involved (and their genes) are *highly* homologous - just like the limbs themselves.
Have a look at this excellent wikipedia article on the evidence *for* evolution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
And this one on the objections to evolutions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution
And I'd also reccomend talkorigins, as a good site for evolution evidence:
http://www.talkorigins.org
In all honesty, the *vast* majority of evidence points towards evolution. There are some controversies within science about particular points of evolution: for example, how quickly it occurs (steady rate vs punctuated equilibrium), or the precise route taken to evolve a particular organism (e.g. - human evolution). But 95% of *all* scientists, in every discipline, credit evolution as being "true" (or, at least, the best current explanation).
There is a reason why the only people who seriously object to evolution do so on religious grounds rather than on scientific ones (though some of them might pretend otherwise).
Have fun with your reading and - if you *do* find questions about evolution you cannot understand, or that genuinely seem to say it cannot have occurred, then please do post them here.