Does the Evidence Support Evolution or Something Else?

The answer to the question would depend on how corrupted, by preconceived opinions and the need to avoid the truth, was the person's mind who was reviewing the evidence. If the course of reasoning is stuck in the rut of material naturalism, then fabricating evidence becomes the norm.

Evolution is an outdated theory proposed almost two centuries ago in a world that was unaware of anything beyond simple Newtonian physics. Evolution suffers from an excess of linear thinking, blissfully crediting time and "all powerful" violence with the ability to create beauty, order, and intelligence. Time is no longer a dependable good fella, no steady strength to intimidate rebels of thought to fall into line. He is a whimsical dependent of the observer's frame of reference. How much time has elapsed since the big bang would depend on where in the universe the clock is located.

Evolution is simply the observation of superficial, minor changes in a biological mechanism and extrapolating backwards to a history of major changes. This fabrication depends on two assumptions: That new information is being added with the change, and that violent, destructive influences will allow only the beneficial changes to continue.

There are currently observable facts. Outward form of an organism is dependent on the molecularly coded language called genes. Change is simply an outward expression of another option already available within the gene pool. Selective breeding, even natural selection, to fix a trait, is actually eliminating the competing information from the genes. Over time, the information pool is degraded in both quality and quantity. The entrance of new information, called a mutation, is always deleterious in it's effects. (As an example, cancer is a mutated cell). That life itself originated from this process is impossible.