Well, I'm glad to see we at least agree on one fundamental -- the fossil record in geological strata does show changes over time, from relatively smaller & simpler to often larger & more complex.
So the question then becomes, how do we explain that?
And I understand that you wish to explain the fossil record as all the products of special (supernatural) creation.
And I agree that is one possible explanation.
However, by definition of the word "science" supernatural creation is not science, and should not be taught to children as if it were science.
The proper place to teach such ideas is in classes devoted to the specific religion of a child's family, I.e., in church or private religious school.
Specifically, definition of the word "science" includes the search for natural explanations of natural phenomena.
So anything supernatural -- whether a phenomenon or an explanation -- by definition is non-scientific.
Of course, that doesn't automatically mean it's wrong -- some things have no natural explanations, but it does put them beyond the reach of natural science.
plain talk: "Besides the fact that complex creatures appeared over time — what is the evidence that single celled organisms over time evolved into complex organisms with eyes, ears, a brain and consciousness?"
Aside from the fossils themselves, the second major line of confirming evidence comes from comparing the similarities and differences in DNA of different species.
These show striking similarities in ALL DNA, and nearly identical DNA in closely related species.
Further, DNA recovered from "recently" extinct species, like mammoths or Neanderthals, show just the expected similarities and differences evolution theory predicts.
Further, by counting up the differences in DNA of two different species, it is possible to calculate roughly the time period of their common ancestors, calculations confirmed in the fossil record.
Another line of confirming evidence, though often ridiculed & mocked by anti-evolutionists, remains the similarities in new embryos & fetuses of most animals.
Early drawings of similarities were later shown to be unrealistic, however current photographs still show many similarities.
And another, any extensive physical comparison of living species shows great similarities among more closely related with increasing differences among more distantly related -- notice the term here "related".
Species can only be related if they have common ancestors.
Evolution explains how different species can have common ancestors.
DNA similarities between creatures does not prove complex creatures evolved from simple ones. The creator could reuse code and package DNA any way He wishes.
Your response offers no evidence that complex creatures evolved from simple ones.
The fossil record is biased—what we see there must be preserved, and humans, as a rule do not live well in environments which are conducive to preservation.
As for that record, preservation is a problem. Create two of every species. In a few hours, there will be millions of bacteria, millions of single cell organisms, reproducing at a phenomenal rate compared to more complex organisms, and generally in environments more conducive to their preservation.
More complex critters have longer gestation periods, spells between those, and, by virtue of their complexity, are more difficult to preserve intact or even as recognizable parts in even a marine environment. Again, preservation is key.
There is additional bias against finding, say, a Teleost (”bony Fish”) bone in Cambrian Strata, partly because of denial, and partly because the strata, if the discovery was confirmed, would be re-dated to a different era or some other explanation for how that bone got there concocted—such would be the bias against the discovery. Of course, claims of misidentification and fraud would be rampant because the find would fly in the face of accepted theory.
Move on to land creatures, like humans, with a generational gap of fifteen years or more, and the proliferation rates compared to the less complex forms drop precipitously, making fewer individuals to be preserved, living in environments far less likely to preserve them than aquatic species.
For that reason, the time of a species inception becomes more difficult to ascertain than the time of their extinction—and even that has proven problematic on occasion.
So, the question becomes one of not whether or not all species existed at one time, or even when they existed so much as one of have we found all the fossils yet>
Fewer people are doing actual, get out and bang on rocks fieldwork, the laws and regulations pretty much discourage that on Federal Land, which is almost always tied to a University to get the permit. I have been places where I was literally surrounded by Eocene Turtle fossils eroding away, but to pick up a bone, much less the entire turtle, would be to invite prosecution, a Felony conviction, and a minimum of a $10,000 fine. Find a human bone there? No thanks.
The entire setup, though would discourage any paleontologist who wanted to keep their university job from finding a 40 million year old human fossil.
Circular reasoning will win, especially when tenure could be at stake. It can’t be human, because there were no humans then. OR The age of the beds is incorrect.
What’s a mutha to do?