I hear ya on that, however, isn't there thousands of fossil records on hand that date way back, perhaps, thousands of years?
There are fossils dating back hundreds of millions of years. Some even over a billion years.
Here's an interesting statement made by Francis Hitching “In three crucial areas where [the modern evolution theory] can be tested, it has failed: The fossil record reveals a pattern of evolutionary leaps rather than gradual change.
You're talking about "Phyletic gradualism" vs. "Punctuated equilibrium". Evolution can change speeds depending on the rate of mutation and the amount of natural selection occurring.
Example: The Cambrian explosion.
Evolutionary theory doesn't state that all evolution occurs at the same gradual rate. This is an outdated concept that even Darwin didn't agree with. In short: A strawman.
But either way, Evolution occurring gradually or evolution occurring every now and then in leaps and bounds is evolution.
Genes are a powerful stabilizing mechanism whose main function is to prevent new forms evolving.
Yes and No. DNA does have built in error correction functions that work to fix mutations as they occur, but this isn't 100% reliable and only really serves to "smooth over" mutations leaving changes still in the DNA. Mutations occur, this is a proven fact. Most mutations have no real effect, some are dangerous but some are beneficial. The beneficial mutations are more likely to spread through a population, and thus evolution.
Random step-by-step mutations at the molecular level cannot explain the organized and growing complexity of life.”[/i]
Yes it can.
Simple as that. In fact, nothing BUT random mutations naturally selected can explain the complexity of life.
Is there any evidence in these observations that indicate one kind transforming into a completely different kind?
Define "kind".
This word "kind" is a weasel word used by creationists because it's used in the King James version of genesis. Scientists don't use the word "kind" to classify species.
There is plenty of examples of direct observation of "speciation", One species changing into another species through evolution (or through artificial selection such as in lifestock or pets).
There are also plenty of examples of indirect observations of change occurring above the genus, family, class and even phylum and above in the fossil record.
It seems like if that were to be the scenario, Darwin's speculation of "the fittest survive" would not work?...
You're confused.
The term "fittest" doesn't mean fittest like people use it today. "Fittest" simply means the individual capable of producing the most offspring. A super strong, intelligent, fast and handsome man who has defects to his reproductive organs making him impotent is not the "fittest" in an evolutionary sense simply because he can't reproduce.
In some situations being strong and smart and fast would help in reproduction, but in some other situations it doesn't help at all and might even hurt. For instance, studies have proven that people who are more intelligent tend to have less sex and produce less offspring, and the more intelligent people are the less offspring they produce.
