Doesn't happen that way. Less evolved creatures are found in deeper, older strata, more complex creatures are not found until later in the geologic column. If any ID or creationist can find a 3 million year old poodle or evidence that man and dinosaurs lived contemporaneously, then evolution would be falsified and would have made national news. As it stands, there is no evidence for a world wide flood in either geologic records or fossil records.
More lack of understanding of evolution. There are many 'transitional' forms walking around today. Every species is in a state of change and evolution, therefore, every species is potentially a transitional form. Transitional and intermediate forms don't wear a sign saying that's what they are, but every single fossil that is an ancestor of modern species is by definition transitional.
In fact, there are so many transitional forms, that paleontologists argue incessently about classification. It sometimes seems like fist-fights will break out arguing whether
Cynodonts is a mammal-like reptile or a reptile-like mammal. We have many transitional forms between certain land mammals and whales and dolphins. Forrms that are fish-like amphibians as well as amphibian-like fish.
There is no 'faith' in the traditional sense, needed to accept evolution. And no, we don't have to account for where the initial elements and energy came from since that isn't part of ET.
Which is why it isn't a science but a religious doctrine trying to masquarade as one.
Elements came from stars. Early stars were made up of hydrogen and helium. During the nuclear fusion process at a star's core, the lighter elements are fused to become heavier elements. During the star's death as a supernova, it spreads those new elements out into space, where new stars incorporate them into their nuclear fusion process, making heavier elements, including carbon, the basic building block of life. As the late-great Dr. Carl Sagan once said, everything we see, including humans is made up of star stuff.
More misunderstanding of selection. Remember Darwin himself did not like the term 'survival of the fittest' because the term fit is vague. Species survive based on their suitability to their environment. There is no 'goal' of evolution. It doesn't have the purpose to make the best, most advanced creature possible, it only deals with populations and their suitability in a specific environment. There are many animals that are social and protect their young, sick and most vunerable, mostly due to low numbers of offspring. It actually is evolutionary different (not necessarily better0 over insects and fish that produce hundreds to thousands of offspring where only a percentage of them survive. One tactic isn't 'better' than the other, they are just different and fill a particualr niche.
In fact, every species that exists today are descendents from winners. Every species that survived, had something beneficial to contribute to the genome to aid in survival.
I find it interesting that people find the subject interesting enough to take the time to post here, but will rarely seek out the information from the experts in the field.
I'm not sure if you are interested in learning, or are like many others, just satisfied that you can ignore the last 150 years of science in the field and make your decision with obviously limited understanding.
If you really want to learn something, try watching this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg
It shows it is long but there is a long Q&A session at the end. If you don't think Dr. Miller makes some interesting and valid points after the first 10 minutes or so, then you are hopeless. If you are willing to spend 50 minutes watching this, I think you will actually learn some important facts.