consider the source.
I did and you didn't even deserve this reply.
gzuz - you do not have an even basic understanding of evolutionary theory. No one faults you for that. What you are being called out for is complete and utter dishonesty about the subject. You're taking WAG's (wild assed guesses) based on things you have heard from creationists. And I'm sure you believe them, which is also fine as far as I'm concerned. What is NOT OK, is to pretend that the things you assert about evolutionary theory are valid, in any way. They are not. They are not scientific in any way. They are "god-based" ideas, for lack of a better description. If God created life, then couldn't God have also triggered evolution as we see it?
Look, creationists (god people), don't want evolution to be true, because they are afraid that it invalidates their god. The truth is, the theory of evolution does not in any way invalidate anyone's god. It is a scientific theory, backed by more facts and evidence than most theories in science, it is totally falsifiable (but so far, nothing has falsified it), and it is completely open to any and all honest scientific debate - always.
But the problem we have, is that creationists want to destroy it, so they can prop up their god story of creation. It's not enough that creationists cannot falsify the theory - totally possible for any honest scientist - but they have to create lies, and pseudo-scientific jargon to keep the rest of the believers from thinking that science may actually know something. Creationists have done absolutely no scientific work at all to truly falsify the ToE. All they have done is attacked the theory, purely because that don't like what it potentially suggests.
Another unfortunate by=product of this religious war against science, is that it is attacking the very science that makes the world a healthier, and more comfortable place for those who need medicine, and other artifacts produced by the base theory of evolution. Without the ToE, most of the medicines we have would not be possible (generally speaking).
Anyway, I dragged this out longer than I wanted to, but in the end, you need to really consider either showing that you clearly understand what the theory say's, or stop arguing as though you do. It's embarrassing to watch people like yourself get into these discussions without the knowledge of even the most basic tenets of the theory. It's like you walked into a gunfight with a stick, shaped like a rifle.