Does the evolution model offer sufficient explanation for the diversity of life forms

Definitions: "Evolution model" - the accumulation of small genetic changes over long periods of time "Diversity of life forms" - all life forms from the smallest insect to the largest mammal. These are mybdefinitions, expressed for the purpose of this debate. If you disagree with how I define these terms, and want to claim they are not scientificalky accurate, then you are not getting my point. Simply put, did life crawl out of "pond scum" and evolve in to every living creature past, present and future, due to changes (whether those changes are from genetic drift, random mutations, of -God forbid- you should argue natural selection) A bit of background about me and this debate. I am for all intents and purposes a conservative Christian, and have been for over 20 years, roughly half my life. I started believing in Christianity midway through high school, and had very little religious upbringing, so I did "inherit" my faith from my parents or from society in general. One last important note, that even before I even started being exposed to Christianity, I remember going through biology class in school and before God was even an issue in my life I did not believe what the teacher was telling me about large scale changes in the taxonomy of animals were caused by the accumulation of small changes. I had none of the knowledge that I have now to back up my lack of belief of macro-evolution, but I just didn't "buy" what science was selling. Clarification of some points: Evolution - is a fact! Animals (including humans) do change! I am not here to say evolution does not happen. That would be utterly rediculous. However, what makes evolution NOT A FACT, is the theory of the wide range in diversity of life supposedly resulting from these small changes. So, please, please, don't point out how "Darwin's finches have modified their beeks depending on theor food source. They are finches, always were finches and always will be finches. The same goes for the various other charts that I have already seen before. As in, the "evolution of the whale", or "evolution of the horse". In every case these charts ALWAYS start with the same type of animal they began with (in other words, as the old saying goes "a horse is a horse, is a horse, of course". I also realize that there are some cases, like the whale, where we have fossil examples that appear to be "walking whales", or other cases where science seems to "predict" what we should see, if evolution caused large scale transitions. I do want to warn anyone who accepts this open debate something that I have been saying for a long time, and that is... SIMILARITIES DOES NOT PROVE TRANSITION. However, if that is the best argument that can be produced in order to prove the "pro" in this debate, then know that many people who believe evolution in it's entire theory have often said that it takes the accumulation of the multitude of scientific fields to prove evolution true. With that being said, whomever accepts this challenge, I hope that you are up for completing the debate in it's entirety, as I looked for similar debates and wasn't impressed with what I have seen on DDO from the most popular of search results. And, to the voters and commentors, I hope you do not bring your pre-existing prejudices in to your votes (both those are are pro and those who are con). Thanks you, and I look forward to hopefully seeing the best of the evidences to support the theory of evolution.