Umm...no...there isn't?
Where the hell did you learn about evolution? My guess is not from something outside your own mind.
Do you only offer personal opinions and attacks in your posts, do you actually read books and have you actually even looked at the evidence? No matter what evidence is given to you, you will dismiss it, as you take natural selection as a religious script and no evidence will change your assumptions. But atleast read other peoples posts.
This is according to Darwin's Origin of the Species:
"If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection."
Well there is fatal evidence which debunks Darwins theory of gradualistic natural selection:
For example over 600 million years ago corals and tiny worm-like creatures appeared on earth. Appeared suddenly and - like prokaryotes and eukaryotes - with no precursors like they came from nowhere. The fossils record also has no explanation for insects, it's like insects came from nowhere and just appeared, there is no sign of "slow modification through natural selection".
In scientific discussions there is also talk of a cambrian explosion
Many major animal groups appear out of nowhere at the bottom of the fossil record. Where did this “Cambrian Explosion” come from?
According to Stephen Gould: "The Cambrian Explosion occurred in a geological moment, and we have reason to think that all major anatomical designs may have made their evolutionary appearance at that time. ...not only the phylum Chordata itself, but also all its major divisions, arose within the Cambrian Explosion. So much for chordate uniqueness...
Contrary to Darwin's expectation that new data would reveal gradualistic continuity with slow and steady expansion, all major discoveries of the past century have only heightened the massiveness and geological abruptness of this formative event..."
Nature, Vol.377, 26 10/95, p.682
Here is your hero Richard Dawkins on the subject:
"And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear.
It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. ...the only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation...",
The Blind Watchmaker, 1986, p229-230
A quote from David Raup on this subject, Raup is notable on his work with fossils:
"The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be. Darwin was completely aware of this.
He was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would.... Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the
situation hasn't changed much. ....ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be
discarded or modified as the result of more detailed information."
F.M.O.N.H.B., Vol.50, p.35
Daffodils, tulips, roses and other flowers are so much a part of our daily lives that we take them for granted. Yet, how and when flowering plants appeared on Earth remains a mystery, a question that has gone unanswered by evolutionary scientists for more than a century. According to the fossil record, mosses were the first plants to emerge on land, some 425 million years ago, followed by ferns, firs, ginkgoes, conifers and several other varieties. Then, it seems, about 130 million years ago flowering plants abruptly appeared out of nowhere.
Solving Charles Darwin's 'Abominable Mystery' - NASA Science
Dr. Niles Eldredge:
"But the smooth transition from one form of life to another which is implied in the theory is ... not borne out by the facts. The search for “missing links” between various living creatures, like humans and apes, is probably fruitless ... because they probably never existed as distinct transitional types ... But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures. This oddity has been attributed to gaps in the fossil record which gradualists expected to fill when rock strata of the proper age had been found. In the last decade, however, geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them. If it is not the fossil record which is incomplete then it must be the theory. “Missing, Believed Nonexistent,” Manchester Guardian (The Washington Post Weekly), Vol. 119, 26 November 1978, p. 1."
"Unexpected Variety—At the lower fossil layers, known as the Cambrian, is an incredible variety of sea creatures without any ancestors below them. This sudden appearance of variety is a mystery to evolution, which would expect species to arise in small steps over long periods of time."
Photonic do you still want to hold on to the outdated flawed theory of gradualistic evolution? Or do you actually want to look at the real evidence.
George Gaylord Simpson conceded, that the gaps in the fossil record are a universal phenomenon:
"...every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of families appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences." (Major Features of Evolution, 1953 p. 360) 
