"E.coli represents early evolution"

Another straw man arguement.. no one ever said a modern bacterium represents early evolution. It may, but then again, it may not. The earliest known lifeforms in the fossil record are things that appear to resemble blue-green algae. Also, there are many types of bacteria, and we have not discovered more than a small percent of probable existing species. Indeed, earliest lifeforms may have been no more than protiens, or a simple RNA strand, or something like a virus (although most poeple dont think most modern viruses came about until after more advanced cells).

The fact is, most very ancients lifeforms have long since died out and become extinct. The earliest primitive lifeforms are almost certainly extinct, and we havent found their traces yet. Therefore, we may never know what the first life looked like, unless we can create it ourselves. Even then, we dont know if it will be the same.

There is a lot of evidence that most of the cellular organelles are derived from more primitive organisms, that became assimilated into larger cell structures through symbiosis. Therefore, the mitochondria (the organelle in the cell that generates energy from nutrients), may have started out as an independent lifeform. This is backed up by the fact that it has it's own DNA.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Either way, the idea of irreducible complexity--though we dont know how the first lifeforms developed--is simply dealt with, and is related to the refutation of the "improbability" arguement: life exists in its present form, so obviously it developed naturally that way, regardless of how improbable it may seem to you. Science can only posit natural explanations, therefore life developed naturally.

Before you call this a circular argument, we can only start from one first principle: that everything developed naturally, by means yet to be discovered. Science can deal with nothing else. If YOU want to posit supernatural explanations, you CAN NOT use science to do it; the result will be nothing more than psuedoscience. Religion and science are different things, irreconcileable, and never the twain shall meet.

What you are trying to do here, is say "evolution cant be true because such and such a problem... so the alternative is that God made all life the way it is". Ok, where do you go from there? Nowhere. That is the same as saying, "We dont understand particle physics completely, therefore, it just works that way because God made it that way, end of story"--this is not useful.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Most of the other arguments dont really warrant mention, as they have been dealt with before, or are completely insane, such as the Missippi Delta one (who came up with that??), or even more funny, the idea that there should be records going back 500,000 years :0 ..that's called crank reasoning.