Evolution

First of all, to address your first point: "This is one of the largest issues with evolution, is the unrealistic switch from asexual reproduction (Cloning), to sexual reproduction (combined genetics), to explain how, I will explain the evolutionary theory; The Theory of Evolution states that ferns developed a means of sexual reproduction (growing flowers) as to increase genetic diversity. I will disprove this by stating simply that the fern is incapable of recognizing asexual reproduction as inferior to another form, in simpler terms, it does not have a direct gain, and organisms are only capable of recognizing threats/ benefits which harm/ benefit them directly," This is not necessarily true. The living organism does not need to be sentient of the benefits for evolution to occur. A lion with enhanced eyesight, for example, probably does not know it has better eyesight than the norm, however it benefits from it anyways. Same with "it stumps bacteria reproduction, since the bacteria does not recognize the honey as harming them, so they do not develop a defense." The bacteria does not need to know that the honey is harming them, but it is likely that at least one would mutate and gain traits that help it survive the honey. And therefore while the rest of the bacteria are dying off, this bacteria would be able to reproduce and make many 'clones' of itself. "The next problem with this is that it could only apply to an individual, because a shift from one form of reproduction to another is unfeasible without a "evolutionary leap" because it cannot develop gradually due to an inability to spread genetic material (It reproduces Asexually remember) which only applies to an individual, and if there is only one of the sexually reproducing ferns, then you have a real problem because they need another organism to reproduce." Theoretically, sexual reproduction originated because Eukaryota cells would sometimes have damaged DNA. However, if it were to be a diploid organism, it would be able to repair the damaged DNA through what is called 'homologous recombination.' A haploid however, would not be able to as the DNA repair would not know the original DNA code. The first 'sexual' reproduction would be a cell with damaged DNA replicating an undamaged strand from a similar organism in order to repair itself, meaning it was already a naturally implemented process. This primitive version of 'sexual' evolution would, in time evolve to how we know it today. For your second point, "According to the theory of evolution, only traits which are favorable will survive, so it is reasonable to say that compassion for offspring is realistic, whereas compassion toward other creatures will be unfavorable as they would most likely become competitors, so if evolution was reality, then all of humanity would be composed of Mafiosi"s who are immensely protective of their children, but could care less about others, yet this is not reality." This is wrong. There is actually something in evolution called co-operation, which is defined as an evolutionary trait where a group of living things work together for common benefits. For example, animals in herds are more likely to survive in a herd than living alone, and so this is the case a lot of the times. This co-operation would lead to an eventual creation of a society, like the one we live in today. Without people caring and working together, humanity would not have made it this far. And for your final point, "According to the theory of evolution, all life is descended from one cell which was by incredible (non- credible) means pieced its self together, and formed a functional set of RNA, piecing these sections together in unrealistic proximity so that they could be fit together perfectly with no interference, this is unrealistic for obvious reasons. Another problem is that the time it would take to evolve just the right genetics to evolve from a microbe into a human is much more than the lifespan of the universe, let alone the lifespan of earth, let alone how long ago evolutionists propose this occurred." You seem to not know what you are talking about. Evolution defines the origin of species, not how life started. (There's abiogenesis for that). Because of this, I will only address your last point, which is untrue, this can be proven by fossil records and etc.