veryone can recall the Nova specials, the museum exhibits, and the biology lessons. But would it surprise you to find that a lot of what you were taught has since been disproven? Would it surprise you to find that it is still being taught?
Before I mention any specific examples of scientific inaccuracies, I would like to present another concept for you to ponder. This is the concept of the "black box." It refers to something that performs a specific task even though no one knows how it does that task. The most widely used example is that of a PC being given to an ancient civilization. They may figure out how to turn it on, what happens when certain buttons are pushed, and even more complex functions like saving, cut&paste, and maybe even printing. But they really have no idea how it works. If they opened it up, all their "understanding" would be reduced to nothing at the sight of the hard drive and microchips. But until that time, they would probably assume that it was magic or tiny animals that powered it.
This same example still holds true today. When scientists make a discovery, like the cell, they were amazed that we were made from tiny little "blocks." And though they knew what the cell did, they did not have a clue how it did it. They could not see inside the cell and inside the parts that make up the cell. But they assumed that the cell was simple. It is around this time that the Theory of Evolution adopted the idea that if the cell is simple and every living thing is made up from them, then it's much easier to conclude that life may have started from a single cell.
This is the theory that is still taught in today's classrooms. Even though amazing advances have been made that show how complex the cell is, we still adhere to the "Simple Cell Theory of the Origin of Life." We now know that even if it weren't for all the complex machines inside a cell, the DNA alone stores more information than the internet. Why do we think of cells as Legos? A single cell is as complex as the entire animal. Evolution does not explain cellular Evolution.
Darwin's Black Box is an amazing book by the acclaimed molecular bio-chemist Michael J. Behe. He goes into great detail about the many examples of structures in our bodies that Evolution does not and can not account for. He likes to remind the readers about the concept of Irriducible Complexity. This is a troubling notion for Evolution to tackle because it plainly shows that if a structure or process has 100 parts and it cannot function with 99, it could not have evolved from 1. Behe, points out that seemingly simple structures are irreducibly complex. He uses a mousetrap to prove his point. A mousetrap is only made up of a few parts but if even one of those parts was missing, it would be useless. Not only do they have to be present but they have to be regulated as well. You wouldn't be able to use a popsicle stick as the base and a crowbar as the hammer. Every part has it's own intended function and design as decided by whoever created it. If you stumbled upon one in the woods, there is no doubt that it created. Why? Because it is irreducibly complex. Most of the systems and structures in out bodies are irreducibly complex but we will deny the idea that we were created. This shows more about "human nature" than science.
Why do some people look at a formation on Mars in the shape of a human face and conclude that it was created by aliens as a sign. But they look at real human faces and think nothing but what they were taught in school. But if we really think about it, is it not more likely that wind erosion and craters could form what looks like a face on Mars than what we see before us here on Earth?
I will begin to accumulate, here, evidence that presents problems for the Theory of Evolution. The list will grow as time allows me to update it so please visit often or use the link to ask me questions directly or see previously asked questions.

Keeping with the topic of cells and DNA, one of the most important functions of DNA is it's ability to replicate itself exactly. But the other side to this function is that DNA must be created from previous DNA. We, in all our intelligence, cannot create DNA but we are told that it evolved from nothing. From what we know right now, that is completely impossible.