29+ Evidences for Macroevolution.
That's all you've got?
The problem is that I could go to any academic library in America to the math section and however many books they have on probability and statistics, that's how much evidence I'd have AGAINST evolution. Every one of those books is a blanket refutation of evolution, from alpha to omega, from the front cover to the back cover. Page after page after page after page after......
Complete this sentence: "There are none so blind..."
The problem is that I could go to any academic library in America to the math section and however many books they have on probability and statistics, that's how much evidence I'd have AGAINST evolution. Every one of those books is a blanket refutation of evolution, from alpha to omega, from the front cover to the back cover. Page after page after page after page after......
I've read a great number of those books (far more than you have, I'll wager), and I didn't find anything in them that could reasonably be considered "a blanket refutation of evolution".
On the contrary, the mathematics of evolution works out very nicely whenever it's examined.
So rather than blustering, "the evidence against evolution is, um, over there in that big library somewhere, really!", why don't you actually present a piece of this "blanket refutation" you allege exists in those math books, so that at the very least we can determine whether you, with all due repect, have the slightest clue what you're talking about.
I await your mathematical disproof of evolution. Be sure to show your work, using additional pieces of paper if necessary. (Fair warning: I've read and analyzed all the usual creationist "mathematical disproofs" of evolution, and you're going to get shredded if you try to cut-and-paste one of them, because they're all deeply flawed and monumentally ignorant of the topic they're attempting to analyze).
Your move.
Presented with 29+ lines of independent evidence that life on earth is related by common descent, you make a cross with your fingers and yell "Statistics!" to make it all vanish in a puff of smoke.
You don't learn anything that way, not that you're trying to. You have nothing to offer science or science education.
Retrospective astonishment is a lousy argument for dismissing history anyway. Much of what happens all the time is in some sense improbable. Specific people do win the Lottery, sooner or later. Shuffle a card deck and deal it out. What you see, whether or not it looks like anything to you, is a one chance in 52 factorial outcome. (One in fifty-two times fifty-one times fifty times forty-nine ... times three times two times one.) Every time.