The flaw at the heart of evolutionary theory

Today I want to take a brief look at what I think is a major flaw in evolutionary theory. (Once you get past the impossible hurdle of getting life from non-life, this would be the next biggest problem.)

Quotes and comments;
A. “Earth’s creatures come in all sizes, yet they (and we) all sprang from the same single-celled organisms that first populated the planet. So how on Earth did life go from bacteria to the blue whale?” [1.]

- I think the major problem the theory of evolution has, can be simply but accurately described in this way; since 'evolution' has no way of creating new information, all the information we see expressed in the millions of life forms today had to be contained in the primordial cell that evolutionists imagine one time (3-4 billion years ago) existed. Everything thing we see had to have been lying dormant in that first cell; the fish that fill the seas, the birds that fill the air, even human abilities such as mathematics. I find this utterly impossible. I can't even imagine such a thing.
Such a notion can only be called some kind of secular mysticism.

- You'll notice that none of the books that praise the legacy of Darwin deal with this problem. It's suppressed in all the textbooks and utterly ignored by the evolutionary apologists.

Notes;
1. Darwin in the Air Creation/Evolution Headlines 01/11/2009
Evolutionary leaps;
'Science Daily last month claimed that “Life On Earth Got Bigger In 2-million-fold Leaps.” Assuming common ancestry as fact, the article began, “Earth’s creatures come in all sizes, yet they (and we) all sprang from the same single-celled organisms that first populated the planet. So how on Earth did life go from bacteria to the blue whale?” Good question. The answer, according to Jonathan Payne at Stanford, is that “It happened primarily in two great leaps, and each time, the maximum size of life jumped up by a factor of about a million.”
- How's that for a leap of faith. You can believe it if you want to I guess.
2. Payne explained, “The fossil record indicates pretty clearly that you need a eukaryotic cell to make that first size jump.” [above]
- In other words, the current explanation of the how the fossil rocks were form has to (just has to) be right. It couldn't possibly be wrong. (Isn't it about time some people started asking whether there's something drastically wrong with the model?) I continue to think the model is radically mistaken, and that a catastrophic model is needed.