The mechanism of evolution can be and is observable. That mechanism, is how natural selection by the ecosystem the organism lives in, selects for or against the slight genetic differences every organism receives from its parents in its DNA, that is then passed or not passed on. DNA is the mechanism of evolution, and its guided by the environment. One of my favorite phrases used is how creationists claim there needs to be an increase in complexity. This phrase is misleading, as it implies where we are now is the most complex we can be. Complexity is a very subjective term. Evolution isn't about complexity, its about diversity. Even still, the biggest change in complexity was single cell to multi-cellular life. One small change can enable another small change, and so on until a new function is present that wasn't before. Its a gradual stacking of change. Appearance of new body parts is indeed very rare, because if we look around at animals we see a very common theme as far as major body parts go. Quick! Name a mammal that has more or less limbs than another mammal and no vestigial bone structures to indicate where it once was. Or better yet, name a vertebrate that doesn't have homologous structures with other vertebrates. There's a reason you can't, its because those structures are indeed quite hard to add or take away, and merely change shape. Our common ancestors characteristics are still present even millions of years after we evolved from them into massively different organisms. Also, intelligence isn't exclusive to humans. We may have the most advanced intelligence on earth, but studies of other animals strongly suggest there are other intelligent species on our earth, example: dolphins. Intelligence, like any other characteristic, is something that can be naturally selected for. Evolution does take millions of years, and how fortunate it is that the earth was proven to be over 4.5 billion years old many years ago, and that number has only gotten more accurate over time. You claim evolution isn't capable of generating new information? Then how do you explain a species of skinks that have always laid eggs, having an separate population of the same species beginning to give live birth? I suppose the fossil record is too "controversial" for creationists (even though it isn't in the least, but acknowledging it does destroy their entire idea) but it does show, very well, how animals change and become complex from simple life forms, and then diversified from that point. Darwin's origin of species has been published since 1859. That's 156 years that evolution has been known about. So out of the around 3.8 [b]billion[/b] years we know that life has existed, your argument is that because we've been actively observing evolution for [b][u]LESS[/u][/b] than .0001% of of the time life has been around and evolving, and we haven't observed a massive change in species, evolution is somehow debunked? You cannot be serious. Do we really need to wait till every species as we know it, save a few, have gone extinct and evolved into new ones to say its been observed? Another important distinction is that creationists love to add abiogenesis to the the theory of evolution to try to discredit it. But they are separate. Nothing in the bible can be interpreted as fact, [b]observed or tested[/b] especially in a scientific context. So there's no need to even dive into it. Your entire counter argument is invalid. You can't counter scientific evidence with hopes and dreams. Unfortunately much of your post is rambling, so I wont address all of it. What I have above should be sufficient unless you desire more details.