evolution, where is the evidence???!!! I see none

Again, there is nothing 'astronomically improbably' about evolution and natural selection.

The absolute improbability of evolution requires faith to be believed. I am only interested in scientific explanations.

You apparently don't understand. Most mutations are infact neutral, in particular point mutations have no effect on the proteins that are ultimately derived from them. A mutation doesn't have to have any relationship with any 'designer' to be neutral, it merely needs to not make a difference for the organisms fitness.

My point is: shower an organism with radiation, and tell me the mutations are neutral. If you go and mess around with complex systems, you most likely will break them. Once a system reaches a certain level of complexity, change becomes exponentially difficult without introducing unforeseen side-effects.

i fail to see how this is at all relevant if true. Evolution does not require 'huge rearrangments of compressed information'.

Are you implying that a new full-functioning organ (like the eye of the squid) doesn't require massive changes spread all around the genome, compared to similar animals that don't have the organ (like the deep-sea blind squid).
Often evolution theory seems to argue from the point of view of "blobs of life" that somehow "adapt" and "select" and whatever. Today we know that there's no such thing as those mysterious "blobs". All is carefully designed.

And natural selection can change the median point of that range, and mutation will lead to new variation, with the same quantity of 'range', but over a different 'shifted' span. Thats the entire idea of darwinina evolution.

This could work, but the odds are against it as far as we know (it could work in a guided simulation).

This is patently untrue. Speciation has been observed in fish, fish are 'higher forms of life'. indeed, why should 'higher forms of life' be acting differently anyway?

All speciation in higher life form involved loss of information, except for cases where they saw miscopying of genes and simple doubling of chromosomes. Only having seen this, they said: "it must be speciation". These partial observations and extrapolations can't be accepted as proof. Even one case doesn't explain all. Just in case you mention it, plants ARE designed in order to hybridize. The grain of rice is a veritable genetic library. It could grow on Mars.

Crystals: their growth is a mechanical process.
irrelevant. They contain 'information'.

The point is that the growth of crystals is predicated on only on atomic properties. There is no increase of information because you can predict one from the other.

quote: Minerals: their properties are causal results of the properties of matter.
Demonstrate that they are not the result of supernatural design.

See previous answer. No need for the supernatural here either.

quote: Proteins: they are the mechanical result of DNA programs.
They, literally, contain the same information that is in the DNA. You can't maintain that they aren't teh result of design but DNA is, merely because of 'information content'.

It's the concept of a language. Genes use aminoacids as a platform to express information. It is like like a painter that takes pigments of ink (matter) and creates a painting (message). By seeing lots of paintings and comparing their styles, you could say that they "evolved" from each other, which would be true only in a metaphorical sense.

What? Humans create complex things all the time.

This is a joke, right? Anyway, the more complex the creation is, the more it proves there had to be a creator, because of all the information it embodies.

And between less complex materials and crystals and minerals there is an increas in complexity. 'Increase in complexity' is not a valid way to measure 'supernatural design'.

Between minerals and crystals there is no increase in complexity because one can be derived from the other, once the physical laws are known. But DNA encodes information at a higher level than these physical processes. So there was a jump in levels that is not explainable from physical law alone. And add to the first jump all the subsequent jumps that are needed, and pretty soon your explanation wears out.

quote: Spontaneously means "irrespective of it taking seconds or ages".
Spontaneous means that it happens without having to force it. It has nothin to do with time.

This was meant to say that the passage of time is irrelevant if all that you have to explain your theory is a source of randomness. Randomness begets chaos, no matter how many billions of years you keep trying.

quote: Therefore, there had to be an influx of organizing information coming from somewhere.
Yes, organizing information, ie adaptation thru natural selection.

Only consciousness can manipulate matter and reverse chaos.

What does that matter? To simulate the movement of individual atoms in a large enough volume of gas would also take 'the computing power of planets and stars', whatever that is supposed to mean.

In order to invent a finished good (like a light bulb), you need the right materials, the right design, the knowledge of many specialists, many tons of materials for testing, laboratories, etc.
In the same way, in order to make a finished planet, one whose control systems themselves are self-regulating, self-reproducing, living machines, I can only imagine what would be needed.

What? Because modern ecosystems are very complex, life couldn'thave originated naturally? And because of that, evolution does not occur? This is a string of non sequitors, not a line of evidence or even a moderately convining arguement.

The complexity of ecosystems can arise naturally, once the species (trees, animals, bacteria) are developed and transported to the location.

Originally posted by StarBreather
The absolute improbability of evolution

What is so improbably about natural slection acting on variable populations with heritable traits and resulting in adaptation and speciation?

I am only interested in scientific explanations.

Irregardless of however you feel about the ultimate truth of Darwin's theory one can't simply pretend that its not scientific. Waving ones hands and saying something about 'probabilities' like the IDists is not scientific.

My point is: shower an organism with radiation, and tell me the mutations are neutral.If you go and mess around with complex systems, you most likely will break them.

That hardly means that most of the mutations aren't neutral. If you expose an organism to radiation then you're probably going to induce so many mutations that of course you're going to get some that are deleterious. Besides, being exposed to mutagens is not the only way that mutations arise.

Once a system reaches a certain level of complexity, change becomes exponentially difficult without introducing unforeseen side-effects.

Drastic change becomes difficult. Small changes do not.

Are you implying that a new full-functioning organ (like the eye of the squid) doesn't require massive changes spread all around the genome

From species to species? No it doesn't. Selection on very primitive light sensing cells can adequately explain the overall evolution of the eye. No one claims that it all happens at once.

Often evolution theory seems to argue from the point of view of "blobs of life" that somehow "adapt" and "select" and whatever. Today we know that there's no such thing as those mysterious "blobs". All is carefully designed.

If its 'designed' then its designed by natural selection. One does not see design anyway, one sees a succession and array of primitive and variable forms, especially wrt the evolution of the eye.

This could work, but the odds are against it as far as we know (it could work in a guided simulation).

No, it works in unguided natural wild populations.

This is patently untrue. Speciation has been observed in fish, fish are 'higher forms of life'. indeed, why should 'higher forms of life' be acting differently anyway?

All speciation in higher life form involved loss of information
I don't think that anyone has ever done an 'information content' analysis on the genomes of speciating populations.

, except for cases where they saw miscopying of genes and simple doubling of chromosomes. Only having seen this, they said: "it must be speciation". These partial observations and extrapolations can't be accepted as proof.

So youi are saying that the people studying these cases just don't have a clue what they are talking about, and since, in your opinion, there is not speciation, then, no matter what, there is no speciation?

Even one case doesn't explain all. Just in case you mention it, plants ARE designed in order to hybridize.

Sicne when were plants designed to hybridize? And how would that make a differfence? Are you claiming that there are only, like, what, three or four species of plants out there?

The grain of rice is a veritable genetic library. It could grow on Mars.

I have never heard this claim before, nor do I see how its relevant

Crystals: their growth is a mechanical process.
irrelevant. They contain 'information'.

The point is that the growth of crystals is predicated on only on atomic properties.
Its dependant on multiple things, atomic properties are one of them. By this reasoning, biological organismare only predicated on atomic properties.

There is no increase of information because you can predict one from the other.

That simply is not how information works. Merely because one can predict it, and of course one can't here anyways, hardly means that there is no information in it.

See previous answer. No need for the supernatural here either.

There is no need for supernatural explanations in biology either.

quote: Proteins: they are the mechanical result of DNA programs.
They, literally, contain the same information that is in the DNA. You can't maintain that they aren't teh result of design but DNA is, merely because of 'information content'.

It's the concept of a language. Genes use aminoacids as a platform to express information. It is like like a painter that takes pigments of ink (matter) and creates a painting (message). By seeing lots of paintings and comparing their styles, you could say that they "evolved" from each other, which would be true only in a metaphorical sense.
That had absolutely nothing to do with what it was typed in response to. Genes have information, proteinshave information, they don't need for it to be expressed by one another, and, indeed, what relvance does that have anyway?

This is a joke, right?

Pardon, I meant that its not more complex that 'anything humans create'. And, again, complexity is simply not an indicater of Design.

Between minerals and crystals there is no increase in complexity because one can be derived from the other

They cannot be derived from one another. If I give you a peice of pure coal you are going to be able to make a diamond? If I give you a melt of a mix of minerals you are going to be able to tell me which ones its derived from? Thats interesting because geolgists often can't do this. To say that a lump of coal has more information that a highly structured diamond is silly.

But DNA encodes information at a higher level than these physical processes.

it encodes at the chemical level, which is the same level that minerals are formed at.

So there was a jump in levels

There is no 'jump in levels'

This was meant to say that the passage of time is irrelevant if all that you have to explain your theory is a source of randomness. Randomness begets chaos, no matter how many billions of years you keep trying.

You are apparently not understanding whats 'random' in evolution. Natural Selection acts on variation. Variation is already inherent in populations of organisms, and new variation can arise thru mutations. Mutations occur Randomly. Thats where the random comes in. Scientists do not suggest that new species arise out of unselected randomness. Natural Selection does the selecting.

Only consciousness can manipulate matter and reverse chaos.

Natural Selection, even before one looks to see if it exists, can obviously 'reverse' chaos. Besides, intelligence is not required to 'reverse chaos', unless you would content that little angels fly around in clouds making dirty unorderd chaotic water into clean structed snowflakes. Local chaos can be undone.

What does that matter? To simulate the movement of individual atoms in a large enough volume of gas would also take 'the computing power of planets and stars', whatever that is supposed to mean.

in order to make a finished planet, one whose control systems themselves are self-regulating, self-reproducing, living machines, I can only imagine what would be needed.
Then that merely demonstrates that your imagination is limited. One does not need design to have an ecosystem. If a niche in an ecosystem is available, then there will be selective pressure on some populations to occupy that niche. Even in very primitive and simple ecosystems this will be true. And the addition of niches and their becomming occupied will result in more complexity with time, and require no direction, supernatural or otherwise.

The complexity of ecosystems can arise naturally, once the species (trees, animals, bacteria) are developed and transported to the location.

I think that perhaps you do not understand what an ecosystem is. The inter-relationships between the organisms are something that has been selected for in each of the individual cases by natural selection. Creating the animals ad hoc to interact and then plopping them down somewhere would mean that the ecosystem has not arisen naturally.

What is so improbably about natural slection acting on variable populations with heritable traits and resulting in adaptation and speciation?

Here we go again: it is a question of number, of mathematical sensibility. 10^1 is different from 10^100.

Irregardless of however you feel about the ultimate truth of Darwin's theory one can't simply pretend that its not scientific. Waving ones hands and saying something about 'probabilities' like the IDists is not scientific.

The evolutionists say that life began as RNA spontaneously in the primeval oceans. Somehow the atoms combined into molecules that could reproduce themselves. But:
1. 2 billion years and lots of water doesn't improve the probabillities.
2. RNA itself doesn't make more RNA out of nonexistent aminoacids: you need enzymes, proteins, the whole works.

That hardly means that most of the mutations aren't neutral. If you expose an organism to radiation then you're probably going to induce so many mutations that of course you're going to get some that are deleterious. Besides, being exposed to mutagens is not the only way that mutations arise.

The radiation example is an extreme meant to show that mutations are overwhelmingly harmful, IF they are random. What you call "neutral mutations" is part random and part nonrandom. Nearly all genetic codes have variable parts, that are meant to change to confer resistance to slightly different environments.

Drastic change becomes difficult. Small changes do not.

In a complex system, small changes are potentially more harmful because of the interconnectedness of the systems they affect.
Again, what you call "small changes" is just an appearance, because what looks like small changes in the phenotype can come from large changes in the DNA.

From species to species? No it doesn't. Selection on very primitive light sensing cells can adequately explain the overall evolution of the eye. No one claims that it all happens at once.

I was establishing the point that even in related species, when you consider exactly how is an organ described, you discover that there is not a neat package saying how it's made. Rather, the information is spread all over the genome.

If its 'designed' then its designed by natural selection. One does not see design anyway, one sees a succession and array of primitive and variable forms, especially wrt the evolution of the eye.

"Succession" is in the eye of the beholder. If evolution was active, it would need to act faster than we can observe (glacially slow, if anything at all). An example is the human kind. As far as we know in recorded history, humans have not changed at all. Yet during this time span there should have been many evolutionary pressures lying around and pressuring us into evolutionary improvement.
All we see is just a greater intermixing of genes, some diseases and resistances becoming more widespread, but not one single instance of evolution.

No, it works in unguided natural wild populations.

It doesn't work in unguided populations, because:
1. There is information input.
2. It is too slow.
Perhaps evolution could have more explanatory power if, instead of slow mutation and selection, it invoked fast mutation and selection. This (suitably developed) would contradict point 2, but still not point 1.

This is patently untrue. Speciation has been observed in fish, fish are 'higher forms of life'. indeed, why should 'higher forms of life' be acting differently anyway?

Translation: "speciation has been proposed as a nice word to describe the fact that slightly different families of fish have appeared in previously dry lake beds". But here we note that the fish are simply different forms of the same kind, so where is the "speciation"? This is just adaptation, nothing more.
I reaffirm: true speciation (like, a fish turning into a dog), has never been observed.

All speciation in higher life form involved loss of information

I don't think that anyone has ever done an 'information content' analysis on the genomes of speciating populations.

My affirmation was not well formed: I meant that, if ever there is such a thing as speciation, then, in general, it proceeds by loss of information. How could it be otherwise? How could we explain the constructive addition of features? A possible explanation (compatible with evolution) could be: generally there is loss, but sometimes a chromosome gets duplicated, which provides a "whiteboard" for future upgrades. Or part of a chromosome, gets longer, which provides more writing space. But then we would see a large variability in gene lengths and gene group makeups among individuals of the same species. As far as we know, this is not the case. So, constructive mutations (indicating a speciation upwards) remain unexplained by the theory of evolution.

So youi are saying that the people studying these cases just don't have a clue what they are talking about, and since, in your opinion, there is not speciation, then, no matter what, there is no speciation?

I approach the subject of evolution with skepticism. A few rudimentary observations here and there of "something probably connected with speciation" are not enough to prove that speciation ever exists. The goal to prove speciation should not interfere with the interpretation of the observations.

Sicne when were plants designed to hybridize? And how would that make a differfence? Are you claiming that there are only, like, what, three or four species of plants out there?

Maize is designed to hybridize with other variants of maize. Bacteria are designed to enable hybridization between maize and other plants (non-maize) by direct transfer of genetic material. In this way, whole plant populations can be upgraded in-place with no need to re-seed, by spreading them with specially contructed bacteria, should it be needed for some reason.

quote: The grain of rice is a veritable genetic library. It could grow on Mars.

I have never heard this claim before, nor do I see how its relevant

I was referring to rice. Rice contains 60000 genes, and apparently "Something like three-quarters of all rice genes are repeated in the code." (source: news.bbc.co.uk...).
Why should a plant accumulate so much junk? What long-term selection pressures could there be that give the plant a benefit obtained only after millions of years, and over all kinds of environments?

Its dependant on multiple things, atomic properties are one of them. By this reasoning, biological organismare only predicated on atomic properties.

Wait. Now you are saying that biological organisms dependent on something more than atomic properties?

quote: There is no increase of information because you can predict one from the other.

That simply is not how information works. Merely because one can predict it, and of course one can't here anyways, hardly means that there is no information in it.

That is how algorithmic complexity works. You can have many descriptions of the same object. None can be more complex than the object itself.
Just as the description of a house plus the building materials is at most as complex as the house, also the material laws plus the particles are at most as complex as the larger results (molecules, crystals, etc).

Proteins: they are the mechanical result of DNA programs.

They, literally, contain the same information that is in the DNA. You can't maintain that they aren't teh result of design but DNA is, merely because of 'information content'.

According to the previous definition, they would contain the same information if they arose naturally. As they don't arise naturally, then there is an added ingredient. The added ingredient is the information content, the expressed intention of the designer.

It's the concept of a language. Genes use aminoacids as a platform to express information. It is like like a painter that takes pigments of ink (matter) and creates a painting (message). By seeing lots of paintings and comparing their styles, you could say that they "evolved" from each other, which would be true only in a metaphorical sense.

That had absolutely nothing to do with what it was typed in response to. Genes have information, proteinshave information, they don't need for it to be expressed by one another, and, indeed, what relvance does that have anyway?

I am not sure I understand what you are trying to say here.
My point is more on an epistemological sense: if you see many slightly different instances of the same object, there is no reason why you should force them into a time-series.
The idea of evolution is just an interpretation that is super-imposed on the facts. I have the notion that sometimes the idea of evolution limits the possible explanations beforehand, and acts like a prejudice.

Pardon, I meant that its not more complex that 'anything humans create'. And, again, complexity is simply not an indicater of Design.

Even a fly or a bird is more complex than the latest supercomputer. This could change in the near future, but we're just not there yet.
As for complexity being an indicator of design, the general rule derived from experience is: if you can recognise complexity, then you can recognise design. Just because you establish an artificial difference between man-made design and non-man-made design, it doesn't change anything.
The only way "complexity is not an indicator of design" is if you wishfully corrupt the definition of complexity.

They cannot be derived from one another. If I give you a peice of pure coal you are going to be able to make a diamond? If I give you a melt of a mix of minerals you are going to be able to tell me which ones its derived from? Thats interesting because geolgists often can't do this. To say that a lump of coal has more information that a highly structured diamond is silly.

Out of arguments, you invent totally new ones. Different states of the same matter arise under exactly known conditions. If you combine 1+3 or 2+2, you obtain 4. Given the same conditions, you obtain the same results. If the results are totally inherent in the initial conditions, then there is no increase of information overall.

quote: But DNA encodes information at a higher level than these physical processes.

it encodes at the chemical level, which is the same level that minerals are formed at.

The presence or absence of information is determined by the knowledge of the interpreter. If you look at a compressed stream, the pattern of the bits
will display a certain distribution. This distribution will look somewhat random, but with regular features from time to time. A code could be devised so that the observed distribution would appear uniformly random. To an unsuspecting observer, its distribution would be indistinguishable from that of a known random source.
So, basically, the message is an immaterial entity which the interpreter is able to decode.
On a totally different level, we can say that messages are written in substrates. The same message could be encoded in different substrates.
The chemical building blocks of the DNA are the substrate.
But the message is the shape of the organism.

There is no 'jump in levels'

Of course there is: one level is the support, the substrate. Another level is the message, the interesting information. Those levels are so different, that one is material (aminoacids) and the other is immaterial (the shape of the organism).

You are apparently not understanding whats 'random' in evolution. Natural Selection acts on variation. Variation is already inherent in populations of organisms, and new variation can arise thru mutations. Mutations occur Randomly. Thats where the random comes in. Scientists do not suggest that new species arise out of unselected randomness. Natural Selection does the selecting.

It's a nice theory. The source of information for selection comes from the environment (meaning the physical conditions, other creatures, etc). The wide environment therefore represents a fitness function that is applied to the successive generations. After a while, the creature develops an eye because the eye confers a relative advantage. So the environment kind of manipulates and shapes the creature. I have no issue with this theory, except for 2 points:
1. There is no time in the age of the universe for this to happen naturally. The theory abuses the sense of proportion.
2. There is no reason, regardless of time, for the spontaneous apparition of information. The theory involves a belief in apparitions.

Natural Selection, even before one looks to see if it exists, can obviously 'reverse' chaos. Besides, intelligence is not required to 'reverse chaos', unless you would content that little angels fly around in clouds making dirty unorderd chaotic water into clean structed snowflakes. Local chaos can be undone.

Before making such wide-ranging statements, lets look at an example to clarify the language: You have some fields of sterile land in some place. You plant some seeds in there. After the plants have grown, you have obtained a more organized state. But who put initiated the process? You.
What would happen if you did not plant the seeds? Nothing.

Then that merely demonstrates that your imagination is limited. One does not need design to have an ecosystem. If a niche in an ecosystem is available, then there will be selective pressure on some populations to occupy that niche. Even in very primitive and simple ecosystems this will be true. And the addition of niches and their becomming occupied will result in more complexity with time, and require no direction, supernatural or otherwise.

Perhaps I have not been clear enough. Ecosystems can and do arise naturally. But the kinds that live in them must preexist. The selection of the living conditions of the ecosystem doesn't create new kinds, it merely weeds out the unfit, and brings out some adaptative traits already inherent or not inherent but structurally possible (an example would be the immune system, where there is inbuilt variability).

I think that perhaps you do not understand what an ecosystem is. The inter-relationships between the organisms are something that has been selected for in each of the individual cases by natural selection. Creating the animals ad hoc to interact and then plopping them down somewhere would mean that the ecosystem has not arisen naturally.

An ecosystem is a balanced system that is self-sustainable in the long run. Once there is sufficient variety of creatures, many combinations can be made to suit almost all the environments of the earth.

I'm just curious all you "mathematicians" who have posted where did you see or how did you perform the calculations that proved evolution "mathematically impossible"? Just to add one more thing, and don't flame me for it; how can you just blindly have faith in something that is unexlainable and unfounded other than a book of stories and people's moral?(just curious I can't make that leap)

How is there not evidence to back evolution from primates.. when there are skeletons of neanderthals, cro-magnons, and homo-sapiens(discluding homosapien-sapiens..all though there is in murder cases) well actually this really just back tracks to neanderthals being at most simple... just evolving to their enviroment in africa or wherever they started from... and just getting dark skin to block the sun for the ones in equater regions... and the lighter skin for sun... and the production of an appendix to consume raw foods(b4 fire was discovered and we learned to cook raw meet, which is why the appendix hardly works for us homosapiens-sapiens now because we dont eat raw meet, and the appendix will eventually leave) and the eyebraws for blocking sun in your eyes .. or sumthing i forgot what the use was.. now we dont need the eyebraws and it will eventually not be with us... and in the future we are probally eventually going to gain more senses as our very small percentage of brain use we use now... in creases to the 20 % and so... and probally will lose senses we have today cause we wouldnt need them.... but basically nothing really points to monkeys.. just an idea of how our skull structure used to be and small brain... and that backtracks to single cell organisms.. its just needed as a starting point... cause you cant just have inteligent peoples come up from after a period of non-existence..(meteoroid hitting earth way back when) it just slowly evolves in area of inhabbitants... im just a freshman in highschool so please dont yell alot at me for all the false statements i may have provided... but then again if i do.. please correct me so i can learn..

The proof is all around you. The pidgeons have learned not to waste their energy flying away from people and instead they just move out of the way. I actually saw some pidgeons taking on a seagull on the boardwalk.

MMmmkayyyy...

Originally posted by JPeter2122
How is there not evidence to back evolution from primates.. when there are skeletons of neanderthals, cro-magnons, and homo-sapiens(discluding homosapien-sapiens..all though there is in murder cases) well actually this really just back tracks to neanderthals being at most simple...

Let's stop the cookie factory for a moment, okay?

"Cro-magnon" isn't a subspecies (they may have been teaching that but Cro-magnon is named for an area where it was found) -- it's actually homo sapiens-sapiens. Just like us. Neanderthals are not human ancestors. They're cousins. Homo erectus is the forefather (according to the evidence) of the homo sapiens species.

But you're correct. There are millions of skeletons in museums and labs around the world, from all these species and the ones listed in that picture below.

just evolving to their enviroment in africa or wherever they started from... and just getting dark skin to block the sun for the ones in equater regions... and the lighter skin for sun... and the production of an appendix to consume raw foods(b4 fire was discovered and we learned to cook raw meet, which is why the appendix hardly works for us homosapiens-sapiens now because we dont eat raw meet,

Actually, I think we've been eating cooked food for well over a million years. Maybe longer. There's evidence in Australia of vast, human-caused fires that date back a very long time ago.

and the appendix will eventually leave) and the eyebraws for blocking sun in your eyes .. or sumthing i forgot what the use was.. now we dont need the eyebraws and it will eventually not be with us... and in the future we are probally eventually going to gain more senses as our very small percentage of brain use we use now... in creases to the 20 % and so...

There's no signs of unusual organs developing. And... the "10% figure?" It's an urban legend (yes, really!) Go look it up on www.snopes.com

and probally will lose senses we have today cause we wouldnt need them.... but basically nothing really points to monkeys.. just an idea of how our skull structure used to be and small brain... and that backtracks to single cell organisms.. its just needed as a starting point... cause you cant just have inteligent peoples come up from after a period of non-existence..(meteoroid hitting earth way back when) it just slowly evolves in area of inhabbitants... im just a freshman in highschool so please dont yell alot at me for all the false statements i may have provided... but then again if i do.. please correct me so i can learn..

Erm... hah? Try that paragraph again with a bit more explaination?

Originally posted by Frosty
(Picture showing "evolution")

Usually these pictures distort the scales so that the bones appear to form a certain morphing sequence. I think all the skulls displayed in the picture are either of monkeys or of modern humans, no matter how many millions of years old they may be.

Originally posted by Mxyztos
I'm just curious all you "mathematicians" who have posted where did you see or how did you perform the calculations that proved evolution "mathematically impossible"? Just to add one more thing, and don't flame me for it; how can you just blindly have faith in something that is unexlainable and unfounded other than a book of stories and people's moral?(just curious I can't make that leap)

What is unexplainable is how RNA is supposed to appear out of nothing, and proceed to reproduce itself without cellular machinery.
Consider this:
The idea that combinations of molecules can appear just in the exact configuration for a certain purpose requires that:
1. A very large (planet-sized) soup of aminoacids appears spontaneously.
2. Something like a primitive cell (a lipid capsule, perhaps) forms spontaneously in the neighborhood of the recently-formed RNA.
What we know, from any kind of environment, is that atoms don't just suddenly decide to form molecules in any way they please.
So, the supporting idea that somehow probability explains the appearance of the first cell is flawed.

" billions of fossils of ape/human mix out there folks, which theoretically it would have took more than trillions of half ape guys to have lived before the full man would have come out"

Well maybe the bones of early men are out there and we just haven't found them. Lots of the humans may have no remains left from they being eaten away or if the thoery of evolution is correct which have been changing for a long time, so on the human time line the LARGE threat of being eaten by animals has only disappeared recently.

"and evolution was never observed,"

Evolution is observed, as mentioned before many viruses evolve because if the cures we make to defeat thats why you cant cure the cold and you need a new flu shot every year. Great evolution in complicated animals like humans, or bears, or horses or whatever are all evolving now but they are very complicated organisms so it takes longer for great changes to occur. We will prbably be much smarter in milllions of years, many just bthink we are at the heighest state right now because we are of the highest intelligence of any known species. Just to prove that us and apes came from a simmiliar ancestor, it is believed that a humanscould have babies with a chimp( I dont know why you would want to thought, but thats besides the point).

"I'm thinking that you should be asking God why he didnt give you the brains to find another theory that actually didnt have so many holes in it.
I wouldnt say logical thinkers will actually be in heaven as I think the Bible still sounds more logical than evolution. Why cant an all powerfull God create an earth in 7 days?"

There is zero proof the bible is real or that god exists. And you dare yelll at us for holes in out story. The only reason atheists cant rip apart the theory of god the procede to burn it at the stake for witchcraft, is that you religious people just say god made it that way, god done did it, it gods creation, how can you stand up to someone who just uses god for all there justification. You may as well answer all out arguements like a 5 five year with two words "just because"

Why does everything happen spontaneously? Can't the planet, amino acids and primitive cells come to be due to natural processes??