Your argument from ignorance claim has been a bit overused. I am NOT saying that because you don't know exactly how something happened, then it must be untrue or that "God dunnit". That's a clever little thing that evolutionists do to make Creationists look stupid.
Do you even read what you write before you post it? You are indeed saying that "evolutionists" seemingly can't answer questions like "how did X organism evolve into Y organism" and "why do organisms evolve", and using that as an excuse to reject the whole business. That is a textbook argument from ignorance. If it's overused, it's because creationists "question" evolution based on "I don't know how this works, and your answers don't work for me, therefore it must be wrong" all the time, ignoring the fact that their "questions" are based on false premises.
BUT, that's ALL evolution has!
Case in point to what I said above.
Nobody can answer the question, "HOW did it evolve and WHY?"
"How did it evolve" is based on the false premise that the only acceptable "proof" for evolution is a perfect chain linking a predecessor species to a successor species, including every single step in between, or else it's not proved. "Why did it evolve" is based on the equally false premise that an organism had to have a "reason" to evolve, like a person has a reason to choose one car over another. Both, as far as I can tell, are based more off of the idea of Pokemon evolution than anything that exists in reality.
Now that creates quite the problem, shouldn't it? If it's such a fact and proven, then you'd expect a rational explaination to the questions I've posed.
Nope, no problem. You see, both questions have been legitimately answered, it's only your misconception about what the questions mean that causes problems for you. "How did it evolve" is explained by the processes of heritability, mutation, and natural selection; the short version is that a mutation which affects a heritable trait will be passed down to offspring, detrimental traits will usually prevent survival and thus block the trait from being passed down and advantageous traits will usually enhance survival and allow the trait to be passed down. "Why did it evolve" is because, simply, mutations happen, and if they are detrimental, the organisms will tend to not survive, whereas if they are beneficial, the organisms will tend to survive at a higher rate.
Nowhere has evolution been witnessed or observed.
You are either misinformed or lying. Evolution is witnessed and observed by scientists performing experiments, such as the one where a strain of E.coli gained the ability to metabolize citric acid. That's an evolutionary change which has been observed. Of course, creationists like to claim that this is just "microevolution", but the fact is that if you have enough small changes happen over time, they add up to a large change eventually.
Nowhere have we seen a monkey grow into a man.
This is what I meant by Pokemon evolution. Nobody who actually understands evolution will ever try to argue that you'll see a monkey grow into a human.
And with the millions of examples of "tough" questions about extremely extraordinary species and life forms that can't be explained, HOW is evolution such a good idea?
Millions of examples, huh? This kind of claim is patently ludicrous. It's exactly the kind of exaggeration that creationists love to engage in, nitpicking to the nth degree to pretend that they're asking real questions. You sit here and go, "oh, yeah, explain the middle ear! Explain the inner ear!" etc, and act like those are in any way relevant questions, as if evolution has to give specific examples for anything and everything that you can call to mind or else it's "not very believable".
Without a God, it's the ONLY explanation, and not a very believable one at that.
Just because you, in your ignorance, don't find it believable because you're constantly making mountains out of pebbles, doesn't mean squat.
Sound like a 4th grader wrote that? Thanks...
No, but I never suggested you were a 4th grader. It's possible for an adult to be ignorant about a subject, especially when they pretend they actually know yet throw up nonsensical questions which show that they don't really understand at all.
If you're going to claim that you understand evolution, you have to be able to demonstrate that you do. Saying, "I understand it, now let's stay focused on all these nitpicked questions I want you to answer" doesn't fly.