I keep going back six hundred million years, when fossil records suggest there were no species with bones. How the first bone came into existence is not the problem for evolution. within four hundred million years, there are species with around 200 bones of different shapes and sizes, complete with all the ligaments, tendons, muscles, nerves, sensors, and brain to guide them.
A long reply for Christmas Eve:
1.
Evolution is not a teleological, single direction journey toward 'higher' creatures. It is about filling every possible environmental niche. Which is why more 'primitive' organisms are not necessarily displaced by higher organisms. The higher organism occupies a different niche.
For this reason, I can see why certain key evolutionary steps would have a radical effect. For instance the eye. Even in its most primitive, early state, the eye is a game-changing breakthrough that confers huge competitive advantage. (In the kingdom of the blind, the one eyed man is king!) Creatures with sight are strongly advantaged to fill all available niches and you would expect to see a sudden apparent acceleration in evolution. This is exactly what we do see.
Similarly with bones. Once the ability to form bones has evolved, it's a far smaller step to multiply it.
There are many factors that could radically change the statistics on TOE. For instance, they are researching into dna 'switches'. It seems that along the string of genes there are some genes that act as triggers or switches for large groups of other genes. What's more, it seems that the timing of the switch is of massive importance. For example, if the switch activates early, the group may form fins. If it activates later, you may get legs and arms. In other words, the actual number of genetic changes or mutations required are vastly less than would be the case if each element had to mutate separately. it may be that fins and arms/legs are not two separate evolutions, they are one.
Another interesting area is the extent to which a limited number of forms and structures are predetermined in nature for underlying reasons of physics and chemistry. This can have astonishing consequences. Look at snowflakes - despite their diversity there are a few simple physical laws that restrict the number of possible forms.
At first glance Nature is overwhelmingly diverse and this is how men originally reacted to it. Gradually we have become aware that it's not correct that each species is an island. They have many things in common. We can categorise them into all kinds of biological sets and relationships. More fundamentally, certain structures such as locomotion systems are repeated again and again. The wheel is not being reinvented every time. It is being repurposed.
This is not what you would expect to find in a continuously created world. It is what you would expect with TOE.
There is research going on in all kinds of areas. But the point is, are there lines of enquiry that would drastically change the maths on TOE? The answer is 'yes'. The statistical objection to TOE is not a fundamental obstacle. It's highly unlikely those odds are going to stay the same.
2.
Although we don't understand the mechanism sufficiently, TOE fits all the evidence we have about the development of life and is not contradicted by any fact. other theories, including all Creationist theories, do not satisfactorily account for a wide range of observable evidence including:
a) The broad trend of simple organisms to more complex organisms over a long period of time.
b) The correct order of that trend - eg we never find homo sapiens in the Jurassic era.
c) The correct geographical and geological distribution of that evidence
c) The way Nature is structured into a huge network of related species, as opposed to individual unrelated creations
d) The evidence of adaptive structures which are not as good as specifically created structures (eg the human skull including its delayed fontanelle closure, altered jaw structure and elaborate birth canal gyrations that formerly led to 1in 5 death rate for mothers)
e) A host of detailed examples such as the Neanderthal/Denisovan evidence I quoted earlier
f) The extinction of approx 90% of creatures before human-like creatures ever set foot on the world and the immense period of time before there was any life at all.
g) The gradual discovery of possible mechanisms (eg Darwin knew nothing about dna)
That's just a list off the top of my head, there are plenty of other evidences. TOE gives a simple, logical and consistent explanation for all of these, whereas continuous divine creation does not.
It is not logical that God would set up mechanisms and laws for everything in the universe except this one area.
TOE is no more invalidated by the problems in its suggested mechanism that astrophysics is by the lack of agreed proof for dark matter.
.
