Hopefully you've already read our main evolution page before coming here and maybe you are looking for more information because you really want to know if the arguments for evolution stack up. If we're to answer this question, we need to know how the evolution argument works.
If you listen to evolutionists you will find them giving many examples of evidence for evolution. However, if you start to examine each individual example, you will find that it is deeply flawed. It is usually based on wishful thinking, and the proponents try to make the facts fit their theory. They try to win the argument, however, with the sheer volume of examples, even though none of them is very good when you examine it closely. Sooner or later if you debate with evolutionists they will come up with an example of a fossil etc. that you don't know about, and they use this to try to win the argument.
But to prove that evolution is a flawed theory, we don't need to know about all these flawed arguments. We only need to ask one question: where are all the transitional fossils? If evolution were true, the world would be littered with examples of transitional fossils - not one or two spurious examples. That is the silver bullet that kills evolution stone dead. And if you really want to know if evolution is true, you would do well to continue to investigate this issue rather than getting bogged down in endless complicated theories. (The other thing we would recommend is that you also investigate whether Christianity is true. Establishing that will also help to answer the questions about evolution.)
The evolutionists themselves have often admitted that these real transitional fossils don't exist. Let me quote from Jonathan Sarfati, PhD.
The transitional fossils problem
Charles Darwin was worried that the fossil record did not show what his theory predicted:
Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.
Is it any different today? The late Dr Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, wrote a book, Evolution. In reply to a questioner who asked why he had not included any pictures of transitional forms, he wrote:
I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them … . I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.
The renowned evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould wrote:
The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.
I regard the failure to find a clear ‘vector of progress’ in life’s history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record.
(This comes from Jonathan Sarfati's brilliant book, Refuting Evolution, the whole of which is available to read free online here.)
When examined, the transitional fossils are either one fully formed animal or another, or else they are a mixture of bones from two different animals, such as a human and an ape, and made to look as if they are a transitional organism. Every paleontologist or biologist wants to make a name for themselves so they are willing to jump to conclusions. And if you start by deciding that God does not exist then you are forced to believe a theory that doesn't make sense.
There is a vast amount of literature online from reputable organisations showing that evolution is not a viable theory.
Here are some more resources:
Four Scientific Reasons That Refute Evolution
Institiute For Creation Research
Creation Ministries International
Answers in Genesis