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

Most everyone is probably familiar with a basic understanding of the original theory as proposed by Darwin, but for those who have been cryogenically frozen for over a hundred years, I refer you to the following;http://www.nature.com..."Darwin viewed evolution by natural selection as a very gradual mechanism of change within populations, and postulated that new species could be the product of this very same process, but over even longer periods of time. This eventual process of speciation by natural selection is illustrated by a sketch drawn by Darwin in his personal notebook nearly 20 years before the Origin of Species was published "Now, according to the same referenced website, modern evolution theory has actually realized something very important (something that most laymen - non-scientists don't realize) that natural selection is a NEGATIVE affect. Meaning it eliminates "non beneficial" character traits."The Modern Synthesis A major turning point for evolutionary research occurred in the 1930s when Fisher, Haldane, Wright, Dobzhansky, and others, developed mathematical population genetic models to illuminate the genetic mechanisms of evolutionary change (Mayr & Provine 1998). The integration of genetics with models of natural selection shed tremendous light on, and strengthened Darwin's views on, evolution — here was the missing mechanism that introduced new variation into populations via mutation and recombination" Notice that last sentence (hopefully everyone sees is bold)... the MISSING MECHANISM (in other words, "natural selection" had something missing), as well as "INTRODUCED NEW VARIATION .. VIA MUTATION AND RECOMBINATION" Most people who aren't in the know, still think that "new variations" are introduced through "natural selection", but as I explained, and this citation confirms, IT DOES NOT! The funny thing is how scientists are contradicting their own self when trying to explain processes like "natural selection". I have a different website to prove this. http://evolution.berkeley.edu... "Because natural selection can produce amazing adaptations, it's tempting to think of it as an all-powerful force" It clearly states that BECAUSE it CAN (is capable of) producing adaptions....etc.etc. However, in the very same page, just a few sentences later, in a close paragraph, we have the same scientist telling us... "Natural selection just selects among whatever variations exist in the population" Now I can see why laymen (non-scientists) can be easily confused, because even the scientists are confused and as a result confusing to others. Now, quiet frankly, I could end my argument right there, because of the way this debate is worded, the opposition has to prove not what evolution IS by citing reference after reference about what scientists have found and believe to be true, but actually SHOW these theories in action. And, since science ADMITS that macro-evolution is NOT OBSERVEABLE, then that becomes a nearly impossible challenge to meet (not without speculation and assumptions that are not proven true or false). But, I won't do that. Because I am already initimately familiar with many of their arguments, I can argue against them without their being an opposition. But don't worry, I won't (and can't) go too far with doing that (because of character limitations). Going back to the very same website citation (the only one I have posted to this point), we can find just exactly how well science itself views "mutation" as a means for the vast diversity of life forms. (Does mutations occur, and do they change animals, certainly, but you will see that even evolution scientists do not believe this is the answer to diversity of life forms). "Random processes/drift. Some models of speciation do not include a role for selection of any sort, but rather invoke a key role for chance events. Such models include speciation by polyploidization, genetic drift in stable populations, and founder-events/population bottlenecks. Although such models have a long history in speciation research — for example in relation to speciation of small populations which colonize new islands — clear empirical support for such models in nature or even in laboratory experiments is relatively limited (Coyne & Orr 2004)" Let me conclude this round (because of certain logistical circumstances, I am limited in what research I am capable of doing) by citing the new "page" in the Berkeley website on evolution. It discusses "coevolution" where a plant can make an adaptation that affects a herbavoir that eats the plant, causing the herbavoir to change, causing the plant to change again, and so on and so forth. This, my friends, is called a THEORY, and/or HYPOTHESIS, and quiet frankly, many people have tried using these statements (that are not shown to be proven true or false) to somehow support the idea that evolution is true. Not only does the burden fall upon a person to prove that (macro) evolution COULD explain the diversity of life, but in the real world (not on this actual debate itself), scientists should be proven that it DID, not just that it COULD! And, of course, for things like cosmic evolution (ie the Big Bang) these sort of things will never be proven! EVER! The BEST that science can come up with is to prove it POSSIBLE and that it COULD HAVE happened that way. Perhaps I worded my debate challenge poorly, because even proving that (macro) evolution provides enough explanation for the diversity of life, it still begs the question DID IT HAPPEN THAT WAY. Well, I will have to stick with the wording of the debate the way it is - and that is find with me, because what I DO know about evolution (which despite what you opponents may believe, is more than most layment) doesn't measure up to the task.