Among the most vocal critics of evolution are scientists from different fields, specifically mathematics and physics. Evolution is not consistent with other scientific theories, and below are some of them:

1. Second law of thermodynamics (increasing entropy).

The supposed evolutionary process breaks the most universal and best-proven law of physics, the law of increasing entropy, known as the second law of thermodynamics. The law stipulates that all systems tend to lose order—they go towards disorganization and loss of complexity. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems but also in biological and geological systems, in fact, all systems, without exception. The law of increasing entropy therefore impedes evolution, because all evolutionary systems are expected to increase in order and complexity—single-celled organisms evolving into multi-celled organisms etc.

Physicists E.H. Lieb and Jacob Yngvason explain:

“No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found, not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy [the ‘first law’], the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles” [1]

A Neo-Darwinist might object that with the help of external energy, systems can defy entropy. For example, sunlight enables plants to make photosynthesis. While this is true, photosynthesis itself is not proven to be the result of a random mutation. It seems infinitely more likely to be intelligently designed.

2. Probability theory.

What is the mathematical probability of an average-size protein occurring naturally? Walter Bradley, PhD, materials science, and Charles Thaxton, PhD, chemistry, calculated that the probability of amino acids forming into a protein is: 4.9 x 10^-191 [2]

This is much lower than the approximate value of ZERO probability (1 x 10^-50) [3], and a protein is not even close to becoming a complete living cell. Sir Fred Hoyle, PhD, astronomy, and Chandra Wickramasinghe, professor of applied math and astronomy, calculated that the probability of getting a cell by naturalistic processes is: 1 x 10^-40,000 Do you understand that this is a fraction of 1 over a number with forty-thousand zeros? And zero probability, as in no chance at all, is approximately 1 over a number with fifty zeros!

“No matter how large the environment one considers, life cannot have had a random beginning. There are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 1020 x 2000 = 2,040,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.”  [4]

3. Decomposition of biological materials.

Soft tissue like red blood cells and muscle fibres (among others) have been discovered in ‎dinosaur fossils. A detailed article on the findings can be found here.

“The ‎preservation of vertebrate soft tissue has long been recognized and documented in ‎exceptionally preserved fossils… Models proposed to account for such preservation ‎indicate that it should be the exception rather than the rule. In particular, it has long been ‎accepted that protein molecules decay in relatively short periods of time and cannot be ‎preserved for longer than 4 million years.” [5]

In other words, the ways that scientists have ‎attempted to explain the presence of these soft tissues (models proposed) are exceptions ‎to the usual scientific laws (rules). You might immediately assume that we’re twisting their ‎words, but read the excerpt again when rearranging their sentences (verbatim). “… it has ‎long been accepted that protein molecules decay in relatively short periods of time and ‎cannot be preserved for longer than 4 million years… Models proposed to account for such ‎preservation indicate that it should be the exception rather than the rule.”  ‎

The bottom line: the millions of years required for the gradualism necessary for evolution ‎from a common ancestor cannot account for soft tissue being found in dinosaur fossils dated to be between 90 and 66 million years old.‎

Conclusion

Scientifically, if the model you have used to arrive at your concluded interpretation conflicts with established scientific laws and proven theories, then your model, in this case, the theory of evolution over millions of years, must be in error and a new model be investigated.

Sources:

[1] E. H. Lieb and Jakob Yngvason, “A Fresh Look at Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics,” Physics Today (vol. 53, April 2000), p. 32.

[2] Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen, The Mystery of Life’s Origin, p. 80.

[3] Probability expert Emile Borel wrote, “Events whose probabilities are extremely small never occur. . . . We may be led to set at 10-50 the value of negligible probabilities on the cosmic scale.” (E. Borel, Probabilities and Life, [New York: Dover Publications, 1962], p. 28.)

[4] F. Hoyle and C. Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1984), p. 176.

[5] Bertazzo, S. et al. ‎Fibres and cellular structures preserved in 75-million-year-old dinosaur specimens. Nat. ‎Commun. 6:7352 doi: 10.1038/ncomms8352  (2015). https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8352