1) Evolution does not necessarily mean that organisms get more and more complex. Evolution through natural selection only pushes species towards their optimal environmental genetic state. That is to say, if the environment a species was living in changed such that losing complexity ensured survival, that species would become less complex in order to better fit the environment. This is still evolution; "devolution" is a misnomer and doesn't make any kind of sense, even in the context you put it.
2) Genesis 5 doesn't show this. Genesis 5 *claims* this, and there is a big difference. At no point does it substantiate the claim that people lived to over 900 years. There is of course, no evidence that any human has ever lived to over 900 years.
3) Given that your first point about human ages in the past is flawed (see above), you have no basis other than your faith in the words of a book to say that we are somehow physically inferior to our ancestors. Again, I call into question the use of the word "devolution". Even if humans had changed so that we lived shorter lives, it is still evolution (assuming that the environment was pushing us towards that).
4) The fossil record provides the answer to your question about whether the process began with simple lifeforms or fully-formed beings. The answer is of course, the former. The different fossils we find (dated at different times) piece together the evolution of life on Earth from the first vertebrates to the present day. You do not find complex fossils or fully-formed beings in old rock layers; you only find them after the Cambrian era, and in varying degrees of complexity all the way to the top (barring extinction events of course).
5) Change comes about by natural selection and random mutation. You are correct to say that natural selection cannot create new genes; it only either passes them on, or removes them. However, random mutation can produce new genes easily. It is this new genetic information which can then be passed on (or removed) by natural selection.
Behold:
![[Image: 303px-Chromosomes_mutations-en.svg.png]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=upload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F2%2F26%2FChromosomes_mutations-en.svg%2F303px-Chromosomes_mutations-en.svg.png)
This is exactly what we would expect to see if Evolutionary theory is true, and is exactly what we predicted before these facts were known.
2) Genesis 5 doesn't show this. Genesis 5 *claims* this, and there is a big difference. At no point does it substantiate the claim that people lived to over 900 years. There is of course, no evidence that any human has ever lived to over 900 years.
3) Given that your first point about human ages in the past is flawed (see above), you have no basis other than your faith in the words of a book to say that we are somehow physically inferior to our ancestors. Again, I call into question the use of the word "devolution". Even if humans had changed so that we lived shorter lives, it is still evolution (assuming that the environment was pushing us towards that).
4) The fossil record provides the answer to your question about whether the process began with simple lifeforms or fully-formed beings. The answer is of course, the former. The different fossils we find (dated at different times) piece together the evolution of life on Earth from the first vertebrates to the present day. You do not find complex fossils or fully-formed beings in old rock layers; you only find them after the Cambrian era, and in varying degrees of complexity all the way to the top (barring extinction events of course).
5) Change comes about by natural selection and random mutation. You are correct to say that natural selection cannot create new genes; it only either passes them on, or removes them. However, random mutation can produce new genes easily. It is this new genetic information which can then be passed on (or removed) by natural selection.
Behold:
This is exactly what we would expect to see if Evolutionary theory is true, and is exactly what we predicted before these facts were known.
