Now that's theres what I been talkin' bout.
But seriously, yes. The cillia is the best example I've heard for the perception I have.
The problem is compounded by evolutionists who take evolution as a given. They give statements like "it's evident all around us," or "it doesn't need to be proven" when trying to win converters. Well, how is that argument any different from any religious expression they're so vehemently against.
There are gaps in the fossil record. This neither proves nor disproves anything. BUt the record we do have is so incomplete as to leave out confidence in trusting that as a major evidence. And it is THE major evidence. Evolution is one possible explanation for some of the phenomena we see about us. Maybe it's right, maybe it isn't, but it's hardly a given and there are problems with it that are very unconvincing.
And there is no way to demonstrate it, conveniently. You need, at best, an experiment thousands of years long to demonstrate it. Then you get to repeat the experiment with various controls? This isn't likely. Theories that are much more demonstrable (such as Newtonian physics and Einsteinian physics) are bearing out as only special cases, or even possibly inaccurate due to quantum studies. Yet they are both repeatable and very precise. So I should roll over and believe a theory that has many, many, many gaps, can't be demonstrated, and is not experimented? That sounds quite unscientific to me.
Interestingly, the whole approach presents an interesting case for Kuhnian history of science theory. Basically, he says you don't win converts in scientific debate. You only can win new members from the younger generation, then you have to wait for the old school to die off. However, it doesn't seem to be given that evolution will win this round. The counter-position still has a lot of influence, particularly over the youth. I think it will continue to be a partisan issue for a long time. Frankly, I have no problem with it being left to whatever you believe, I just have problems with people telling me that not accepting evolution is unscientific. Whichever side you fall on, you've made a pre-rational decision on which authorities to believe and you have to accept major gaps in your explanation, gaps that could destroy your explanation when filled.