Evolution

The science of evolution is bad science.  I've said it before.  Here's some specific references that are fairly new.

Human-Chimp DNA comparison; similarity is much less than previously reported; the 98-99% common claim which has been casually tossed around for years is completely debunked.

https://www.icr.org/article/human-chimp-dna-comparison

Granted, the source is a creation science institute, but as the author says, nobody is making any attempt to tear apart his work seriously, because they know his methodology is sound science and they'll only get the same results he does.  But the midwitted (or less) will no doubt engage in the genetic fallacy and attempt to dismiss his data just based on who's reporting it.

Which is why the next link is nice, because it is from a "normal" secular-evolutionary science source, and says pretty much the exact same thing; the human-chimp genomes are much more different from each other than the theory of evolution models that they can possibly be.  Why are they so different if the split is so few generations?  There's no accounting for it in any model of evolution that makes any sense.

http://richardbuggs.com/index.php/2018/07/14/how-similar-are-human-and-chimpanzee-genomes/

And then we have the statistical modeling, done before that was something the modeler was aware of, which proves that even at 98-99% common, it is mathematically impossible for the differences to have grown even that much in the time frame posited by the theory of evolution.  Not only mathematically impossible, but comically so.  (As an aside, don't believe the propaganda.  Scientists aren't necessarily all that smart, and certainly very few of them have any understanding of statistics, which means that when they're making up claims based on the likelihood of something happening, they literally are just making it up, because they have no idea what they're talking about.)

Or, to put it more simply, there have been 450,000 chimp and human generations since the CHLCA (Chimp/Human Last Common Ancestor). Based on the number of mutations observed fixing in parallel in the Nature study, that would permit 562 total fixed mutations in that time frame. Which is only 29,999,438 short of the approximate number observed.

Of course, now that the gap is not 1-2% but well into double digits, the math just becomes even more absurdly impossible.

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2019/02/maximum-mutations.html

If your faith is challenged by the science of evolution, take comfort!  The science of evolution is not nearly so settled as we are usually taught that it is; in fact, the theory of evolution is on the verge of being completely discredited.  It actually already has been, honestly, but it has too much inertia to work its way through the system yet, and of course, there isn't another model waiting in the wings to replace it.  It will be many years before scientists are really willing to admit its failure in general.  But it has failed nonetheless, according to the very processes of the scientific method that were supposed to have enshrined it.

And don't base your faith on that kind of stuff anyway.  2 Nephi 9:28: "O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish."