It's probably a little late to enter this debate since it's basically developed into mountain vs Program ZERO, but I'll just toss in my two cents anyways...
I believe that evolution does occur, but also that the concept, while for the most part true, has flaws. This is based off that all aspects of an organism are derived from a progression of transitory elements in its predecessors. While this would be true with most examples (to take from the debate, the evolution of wings), I find it hard to apply this concept universally. The most glaring problem with me would be the ability of sight. While sight may prove very beneficial after its complete development, any form of a transition in the development of eyes seems neither beneficial nor harmful to an organisms ability to survive. And supposing an eye complete with lenses and optical nerves happened to be a mutation the brain still needs to develop enough to be able to use said eye.
I am by no means a biology major nor have I studied evolution extensively (though willing to research), but I've just been harboring this question for a while and figured this would be a suitable place to bring it up ^^'' (though I might just get ignored...)
