The deception that "it has been proved that life could have emerged by chance on the primitive earth"
This is a field of ongoing research, as such no one claims to have the definitive answer on this yet. It doesn't mean there aren't interesting findings though, both in the realm of biochemistry and astronomy. Which suggest simple organic structures occur naturally within certain circumstances.
The deception that "the human embryo has gills"
Human embryo's do not have gills, however they do have in an early stage, unspecialized tissue that in a fish embryo would become gills and in humans, I think ears, as the embryo develops further. Embryo homology.
The deception that "natural history confirms the tree of life"
So does genetics as well, by the way.
The deception that "archaeoptreyx is the missing link between reptiles and birds"
And how would you explain species like Archaeopteryx then? Or for that matter many other species that have intermediate traits, including but not limited to species like Tiktaalik or Ichtyostega? Not to mention that more and more such fossils are found.
Of course in all honesty, calling them transitory forms is perhaps not entirely correct. As evolution is a constant process each species could be considered a transitory form that could over time adapt to new circumstances. (Something which has actually been OBSERVED in mosquito's, mice and other species.)
Archaeopteryx however is significant because it has both reptilian and avian traits.
The deception that "the evolution of the horse has been proven by the fossil record"
Eohippus, mesohippus, miohippus, merychhippus, pliohippus form a pretty need row, comparing them physiologically and from the perspective of their occurence within the fossil record. Horses as such are a group where we have a very nice insight into their evolution. Really its putting two and two together if you date those fossils and compare their anatomy. Up to the point where denying the connections requires a much greater leap of logic then simply putting them together.
The deception that "living things possess vestigal organs"
So what DO you use your appendix for then? Or the plantaris muscle in your toes? Or your tailbones? Or your wisdom teeth? Or that artery in your anus that has no real use except to give you hemmoroids. (And that some species get along without fine.)
The deception that "vertebrates' five-fingered hand structure is evidence of evolution"
Anything you can trace back into the fossil record is evidence of evolution.
The deception that "industrial mellanism is evidence of evolution by natural selection"
And I guess the creationist alternative is that God personally painted them over then?
The deception that "mutation experiments are proof of evolution"
Its very simple... Within lifeforms genetic material, there is a capacity for change. Sometimes such a change makes a lifeform better adapted to its environment, increasing its chances to survive and breed. (Much like those moths.) Even if creatures where created, hypothetically speaking. If they where created with the capacity to change and adapt, they could still as such evolve. The only way for them not to be able to evolve is for there to be no potential within a creature to change (over the generations) at all. Which is clearly not true.
The deception that "fossils prove that ape-men once lived"
Well in science they prefer 'Hominids' But I think Australopithecus and other such species would fit the bill.
