Oh boy, I feel like Daniel entering the lion's den here, but here it goes:
First, GC, you are absolutely correct, we need initial starting conditions and indeed the laws of nature apply; e.g. thermodynamics. So, Brush Okie, entropy did not suddenly reverse itself. The interpretation of the third law of thermodynamics tells us that entropy (disorder) will dominate a system unless energy is provided into the system to maintain its order. In other words, life requires input of energy or disorder (death) will result. In fact life is a continual struggle to override entropy - energy input is required.
Second, the theory of evolution is just that - a theory. However, the preponderance of evidence supports this theory. The rules of logic dictate that we cannot "prove" a theory only "disprove" it by credible evidence that the theory cannot explain. Alelks, Brother, I love ya (no not in "that" way Dusty) but your entire post is
not scientific "fact" and does not disprove the theory of evolution (I will refute these assertions point by point later).
PRB, your assertions re: DNA and accumulation of mutations, is behind the times- about 47 years
The entire theory itself is evolving, but not in such a way as to invalidate its underlying premise and especially not the broader understanding.
Towards that end, I have a little personal story on that point. As an undergraduate, I was studying cell biology. At one point, I was particularly intrigued by the apparent morphological similarity of chloroplasts and mitochondria. One day after lab, I went to Prof. Robert's office to discuss this with him. My thought was, could these two organelles (one in the Plant Kingdom and the other in the Animal Kingdom) have a common ancestral origin. He just smiled and shuffled through his books and papers behind his desk and handed me the seminal paper by Lynn Margulis on the symbiotic theory of evolution, now called endosymbiosis. I have posted two links below about Lynn Margulis and the theory of endosymbiosis.
At the time this was a highly controversial theory (now widely accepted) and was the first and so far only credible challenge to the notion that it was the accretion of random mutations and natural selection that was the fundamental driver of evolution. I later had the pleasure of listening to Prof. Margulis expound on her thoughts. She has had a profound impact in the field of evolutionary biology and our understanding of evolution.
More later.
http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/conte...ls/organelles/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...gulis-obtiuary