The recent 200th birthday of Darwin has brought some attention back to the famous theory of evolution in Darwin's "Origin of Species".  Sorry to say I don't buy this crud.  In short, Darwin's theory implies that life "evolved" through a series of evolutionary steps, eventually becoming primates and then finally to modern humans.  The driving force of this evolution is natural selection, survival of the fittest.   The reason why I think this theory is so popular is that it implies that we as humans are evolving upward.  Maybe in a million years (assuming we don't blow ourselves to bits in a nuclear war), the human race will be vastly superior in some form or another to what we are today.  Maybe we will be smarter, or more athletic, or more artisitc, etc.  I think this is total nonsense.  Here is my paper on "The New Origin of Species".  If you find flaws (and you should have no problems finding them as they are plentyful), please provide a comment so that I can fix them. 
The New Origin of Species
By Dr. Kenneth A. Watanabe
I was taught about evolution in school and at the time it seemed like a plausible theory. According to Charles Darwin, a segment of a species that has a variation (genetic mutation) that is advantageous will survive and those that do not have this variation will die out due to natural selection. This will result in a stronger species and eventually through many genetic mutations, the species will evolve into a totally different and stronger species. This is a very elegant theory because it implies that in the very long term (millions of years) life has advanced from single celled creatures into worms, then into mammals, then into primates and eventually into humans; and it implies that in the centuries to come, we will continue to evolve into entities beyond our current human species and become superhuman beings.
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/
Island scenario
Imagine an island with a population of several thousand inhabitants. There is a massive earthquake and the island splits apart. Half of the island drifts to the north towards the north pole and half of the island drifts south towards the equator. Let’s say for the sake of argument, the population and land area are split evenly. Let’s also say the halves of the island drift far enough apart so that the inhabitants cannot visit each other or communicate with each other. Let’s also say that this was a time far in the past where airplanes, boats, radios, cars, and electricity did not exist.
Each group will be exposed to different environmental conditions. The northern island fragment would be subject to much colder conditions. The inhabitants will have to adapt by storing food during the summer, building strong houses and making thick clothing to keep them warm in preparation for the cold winters. There will be freezing winters, and many of the unprepared will freeze or starve to death.
The southern island would be subject to a hotter climate. The inhabitants will not need strong houses or thick clothing to keep them warm. The southern island will be exposed to more hurricanes and very hot burning summers. The sun will be much stronger so there will be higher incidences of skin cancer.  There will also be more mosquitoes and higher incidences of malaria an other tropical diseases like dengue, tuberculosis, Chagas disease, leprosy and many others.
Each group of inhabitants will be exposed to different elements, viruses and chemicals that will alter their DNA. Exposure to sunlight causes damage to DNA in the skin. Also, viruses attack and alter the DNA of their hosts. The inhabitants may also discover a way to make cans to preserve their food for the dreadfully cold winters. Exposure to the lead or other chemicals and heavy metals can damage DNA and cause genetic mutations. Since each group will be exposed to different levels of sunlight, different viruses, and different chemicals over the course of time, the DNA of the northern population and the southern population will eventually become distinct enough so that they form different species. Which group will be more intelligent, stronger, or superior is not known. The only thing that can be said is that the species diverged.
Now this “separation” may not necessarily be an island breaking apart and the inhabitants need not be humans (or monkeys). But it could be as small as a leaf with some bacteria on it, blowing a mile away. The leaf lands in a place that is exposed to different conditions and the bacteria adapt and mutate and change over time. And there can be MANY leaves drifting in many directions with many different bacterias.
There may also be “wanderers” that voluntarily travel north or south., or east or west, or climb high up on the mountains, or move into the deserts or jungles. Living things like to “spread out”. This voluntary separation may also be a factor in the generation of new species.
Some Evidence Against the Theory of Evolution:
The P Element in Drosophila melanogaster (the common fruit fly).
All modern D. melanogaster contain a 2907 base pair element in their DNA known as the P element. Early populations of D. melanogaster did NOT contain this P element. How did this element get into the DNA of D. melanogaster? The suspected vector is a virus or parasitic mite that infected the D. melanogaster. The P element is thought to have evolved in Western Africa, but with the advent of commercial shipping by humans, the P element spread to the Americas in the early 1800s and by the end of the century, ALL the D. melanogaster in the Americas were infected with the P Element through heredity and transposition.
http://engels.genetics.wisc.edu/Pelements/Pt.html
What this means is that within a mere 200 years, the DNA of all the D. melanogaster was modified to contain the P element. Interestingly, this P Element is not beneficial to the fitness and well being of the D. melanogaster . In fact, the modern D. melanogaster has a lower level of fitness and shorter lifespan than their predecessors which is contrarian to the Darwinian theory of evolution.
 
The Malaria effect.
“Malaria is a vector-borne infectious disease caused by protozoan parasites. “
“Usually, people get malaria by being bitten by an infective female Anopheles mosquito.”
“Certain people have a genetic variation or mutation of a single nucleotide (A to T) of the β-globin gene, which results in glutamate to be substituted by valine at position 6. The genetic disorder is due to the mutation of a single nucleotide, from a GAG to GTG codon mutation. “ (taken from Wikipedia)
People with this genetic variation are essentially immune to malaria. So according to Darwin’s theory of evolution, in theory all humans will eventually have this single nucleotide mutation and malaria will be eliminated. On paper this sounds very promising but in actuality, there is a side effect to this mutation. People with this mutation have the disorder known as sickle cell anemia.
In places where the incidences of malaria are very high, it is advantageous to have the sickle cell trait to avoid catching malaria and dying. However, having sickle cell anemia is no walk in the park either. Sickle cell anemia allows the hemoglobin to polymerize into fibers that distend red blood cells. This causes a large range of blood related symptoms and leads to a shortened life. Sickle cell anemia is a hereditary blood disease that prevents the manifestation of malaria, a protozoan blood disease. Although, people with sickle cell anemia will live longer than people infected with malaria, this is contrarian to the Darwinian theory of evolution. It shows that people are evolving downward rather than upward.
The American Bison (aka Buffalo)
The Bison population was in the multi-millions (maybe as high as 100million) in the early19th century. Because of massive hunting, the herds of Bison were nearly extinct by 1885. Conservation efforts have brought the numbers back to around 350,000. Now that the numbers of Bison have been devastatingly reduced, are the modern Bison a more robust specie than in the early 1800's? Are they any better at running away from hunters? Do they have better camouflage? Are they quieter? Are they quicker? Are the cuter? NO! They are pretty much the same. It was purely RANDOM which ones survived and which ones perished.  Survival of the fittest played absolutely no role in this scenario and many other scenarios.  (Population numbers taken from Wikipedia)
 
In summary, I believe that the divergence of life into different species arose from a prolong separation, either voluntary or involuntary. The separated population were exposed to different environmental factors which altered the DNA and over time, resulted in a separation of species. Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection plays a very small role if any to the separation of species.