Then why have we never seen one species evolve into another species? We can make comparisons - this fossil is similar to that fossil and that fossil came before the other fossil. We can observe cellular evolution - resistance to different bacterium and viruses and such, but no scientist has reproduced the two essential components that PROVE evolution to be fact:
1. the creation of a living organism from the non-living elements of life, and...
2. the evolution of one species into a completely different species.
The probability that simple, single-celled organisms formed accidentally out of a pool of prehistoric muck are so outrageously low that they are laughable. The probability that single-celled organisms evolved to possess all of the higher functions of mankind are equally remote.
"no scientist has reproduced the two essential components that PROVE evolution to be fact:
1. the creation of a living organism from the non-living elements of life, and...
2. the evolution of one species into a completely different species."
1. This is abiogenesis, not evolution. Google it.
2. This has been demonstrated multiple times, ie. new species of fruit flies created in labs.
We don't need to see one species evolve into another species (even though we have)
The theory of evolution is an explaination, a model, for the history of life on Earth. As you point out there are fossils that can be compared and they are found in a certain order. Evolution is quite strict as an explaination. There are many ways new fossil finds could contradict evolution. Yet despite over a century of fossil finding the fossil pattern does not majorly contradict evolution. It's too much of a coincidence. So historical evolution is regarded as beyond doubt - beyond doubt = scientific fact. Even many Intelligent Design advocates accept common descent of species.
but no scientist has reproduced the two essential components that PROVE evolution to be fact:
Scientific theories are not proven to be fact. They are supported beyond doubt and so regarded as fact. It's the same as if all the evidence pointed towards a defendant in court for a murder. It would be beyond doubt, but not proven. Noone observed the murder scene.
The probability that simple, single-celled organisms formed accidentally out of a pool of prehistoric muck are so outrageously low that they are laughable.
It is not part of the theory of evolution, and noone suggests single-celled organisms formed accidentally out of a pool of prehistoric muck. Equally noone suggests stars formed accidently out of a pool of cosmic muck.
The probability that single-celled organisms evolved to possess all of the higher functions of mankind are equally remote.
Such a probability cannot be calculated. You are using your gut feeling.
Evolution is not considered a fact. Evolution is considered a scientific theory that explains the observable facts and is based on tested and retested observations that are peer reviewed to reach logical conclusions.
If people actually and truly want to learn evolution please feel free to visit
http://www.freerepublic.com/~patrickhenry/#List-O-Links
or
http://www.freerepublic.com/~ichneumon/
ID and C are not scientific theories and at best could be philosophy.
#1 has nothing to do with evolution, and #2 has been done.
Perhaps the probability is not as remote as once thought.
I have read arguments that the rate of "natural" genetic mutation is insufficient to explain the presumed rate of evolutionary change.
Dinosaurs are thought to have been dramatically impacted by a comet some seventy million years ago. Perhaps epidemics of retrovirus infection have occured on earth every ten thousand years or so, providing an environment in which the genomes of virtually every species are given a shock. Perhaps the rate of beneficial mutations, as well as the more frequent negative mutations, can increase by many orders of magnitude for many generations.