Evolution of evolution

There are few things in this world that really get me going. So my passion about evolution really stands out from my everyday demeanor.

Evolution, as the word is commonly used these days, is so off. The evidence around us just does not support the theory. And yet this dogma is maintained in the sciences because the only other alternative, that everything did not happen by chance, is 1) not allowed in public institutes, and 2) not able to be proven or disproven. And this is the sole reason evolution remains in education. People want to know where we came from, and they look to science for answers. Science responds that they can only give answers to questions that can fit within controlled experiments. Since the idea of something bigger than us can not fit within the confines of our experiments, it immediately is put on the shelf.

And then there are our senses. I am currently finishing up my PhD in neurotoxicology, so I know a little about how the body works, especially the brain. And I must say that our senses are oh so very limited. Briefly, our body senses the world through contrasts. The way we hear, the way we see, the way we taste, the way we feel textures. It is all contrasts. Look at optical illusions...they play on this all of the time. The brain does a lot of summarizing, comparing and editing before our senses ever get to the parts of the brain involved in consciousness. And yet we believe we could sense a creator if one existed.

And the theory...well, the different sciences may all use the word evolution, but the definitions often CONTRADICT! Evolution to a macrobiologist (e.g. zoologist, botanist, biologist) is very much different than to a molecular biologist (e.g. geneticist, biochemist). And when the macrobiologist sees something, they say that it happened because through genetics, and they leave it at that. When a molecular biologist sees something, they are so caught up in the details that they neglect the fact that it never happens in real life.

Example in point: for evolution to occur, you must be able to record improvements for future generations. For this, you need either DNA or RNA. However, there are a few problems with this:
1) DNA and RNA are the MOST complex molecules in existance. So the most complex must be created first, before amino acids for proteins, and fats form lipid bilayers.
2) Thousands of little protein machines must come together for DNA to be replicated, read, and translated. Before these protein machines came into being, the DNA was useless.
3) Proteins, including novel ones with new functions, can not be recorded back into DNA. No scientist has ever suggested this ever happens, because it just can't happen. So how did all the code get into DNA?

There is so much to say about this topic, but so much has already been argued for decades. Perhaps I will revist this topic at another time.