Evolution is Scientifically Impossible
here we go again.
Evolution is a theory developed one hundred and forty years ago by Charles Darwin (N/A actually, by his grandfather in 1794 - before Charles was even born), before science had the evidence available to prove the theory false.
Erasmus Darwin (aforementioned grandfather of Chuck D.) did not create the theory of evolution, he did however believe in a sort of evolution (not uncommon at the time among the learned folk) and we know this because of a poem of his that is the second part of a set of two in a book he got published in 1791 called The Botanic Garden. It seems that he believed in decent with modification and common decent (at least to a degree). It should also be noted that Charles never met his grandfather, he died about 7 years before he was born.
(Side note: Even if he got his hypothesis from a fever dream, it would have no effect on its validity, so long as its validity could be proven, as is the case).
Charles Darwin likely knew about his grandfathers ideas at an early age and certainly saw that they were self evident in the many Plants he grew up around, It seem the love of all things botanical was an inherited trait seeing as his grandfather formed The Lichfield Botanical Society, both his parents were avid gardeners, and he likes to go on about flowers for large sections of On the Origin of Species (which I have actually read unlike someone).
His famous book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, has a title that is now known to be scientifically false. New species cannot evolve by natural selection. Modern scientific discoveries are proving evolution to be impossible. No new scientific discoveries have been found to support the Theory of Evolution.
Unfortunately it would take to much time to site almost every paper from every field even slightly pertaining to biology so I'll try to give you an example with words at your reading level:
Life did not start with a bolt of lightning striking a pond of water as claimed by the main stream scientists.
If this were the end of the 19th century you might have a leg to stand on. In It would take to long to to explain the current model for abiogenisis but I will link a rather enlightening study on the subject as well as leave you its abstract:
"A minimal cell can be thought of as comprising informational, compartment-forming and metabolic subsystems. To imagine the abiotic assembly of such an overall system, however, places great demands on hypothetical prebiotic chemistry. The perceived differences and incompatibilities between these subsystems have led to the widely held assumption that one or other subsystem must have preceded the others. Here we experimentally investigate the validity of this assumption by examining the assembly of various biomolecular building blocks from prebiotically plausible intermediates and one-carbon feedstock molecules. We show that precursors of ribonucleotides, amino acids and lipids can all be derived by the reductive homologation of hydrogen cyanide and some of its derivatives, and thus that all the cellular subsystems could have arisen simultaneously through common chemistry. The key reaction steps are driven by ultraviolet light, use hydrogen sulfide as the reductant and can be accelerated by Cu(I)–Cu(II) photoredox cycling."
Kids are taught that life can evolve given enough time. This is a false statement without any scientific support.
no scientific support at all, well except for... well... literally all research pertaining to biology in any way shape or form, publish within the last century and a half.
They are taught that if given enough time, a monkey at a typewriter could punch keys at random and eventually type President's Abraham Lincoln Gettysburg Address. This is nonsense.
The example is usually Hamlet and chimps if memory serves but same shit really, also its not nonsense, mostly, in reality chimps given a typewriter usually get destructive after a while and when they do type they have a tendency for repetitiveness in regard to letter choice, but the premise of randomly typing letters will eventually create something you recognize is a mathematical inevitability, and If you ad selective pressures it quickens the process, for the sake of simplicity lets say you have many five letter sequences and that are capable of creating offspring, and that the offspring are susceptible to mutation, and that there is selective pressure to create patterns most resembling my first name (folowing one liniage to save time):
[GHBZW] [GHBQN] [DHBAE] [HHBCN]
X ↓ ↓ ↓
... ↓ ...
[DKWAE] [NHBVE] [DHBQZ] [DYBAQ]
↓ X ↓ ↓
... ... ↓
[DABQW] [DYBZX] [DYXAM] [DYQAN]
X ↓ ↓ ↓
... ... ↓
[DYQEX] [GYQAN] [DYXAN] [DYLAN]
X ↓ ↓ ↓
... ... ↓
(this is simplified for the sake of time if it wasn't obvious)
Time does not make impossible things possible. As an example, a computer was programmed in an attempt to arrive at the simple 26-letter alphabet. After 35,000,000,000,000 (35 trillion) attempts it has only arrived at 14 letters correctly.
sight your sources. also seeing as their is a 1:26 chance of getting the correct answer, that is 3.7037% and your chances of being struck by lightning are about 1:3,000 that is 0.0333%. I guess being struck by lightning must be impossible. also you don't take into account selective pressure.
What are the odds that a simple single cell organism could evolve given the complexity of more than 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations all in the correct places? Never in eternity! Time does not make impossible things possible. (...)
what are the chances that I would wake up this morning alive, and that I had eggs and bacon this morning, and that I watched YouTube afterward, and that I skipped lunch, and that I went swimming, and that I swore at some annoying teen ruffians, and that I got some sumol and a cookie at the bakery, and that I wrote this review.
well it is so improbable it must not have happened... if you can't see the logical fallacy than their is no hope for you.