First off, EG3K, you appear to have fallen victim of a very common error made by anti-evolutionists of all stripes. In brief: You may or may not understand evolution; naetheless, it is not as simple as you being able to say, "I doubt evolution, therefore 'god' ".
Even if you were able, somehow, to disprove any major tenet of the actual current TOE, that, in and of itself, has no probative value anent the existence of 'god',
your 'god', nor yet any 'gods'.
It is not the case that the alternative to evolution is 'god'; even if it were, you would be left with the problem of
which of the multiple thousands of invented 'gods' was, in fact, the 'god' that "science proves" in your OP.
Your best bet might be to start with one or more of the popular books on the subject. Jerry Coyne's
Why Evolution Is True would not be a bad one to start with. You could also peruse the Q&A and the archives at TalkOrigins.com; the index of responses to Creationist Claims is particularly useful, and can be read in small doses.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/
Where is the evidence for evolution?
All about you, really.
Have you never wondered why you need a different flu vaccination every flu season?
Have you never wondered why living things fall into groups of nested hierarchies, easily identified by shared derived characteristics?
What is the mechanism by which it occurs?
Essentially (and simplistically), populations are polymorphic. Some forms of an organism are more suited for certain conditions than others; and that suitablity confers a differential reproductive success (some organisms are better hat reproducing themselves--more young, stronger young, whatever--and more of the succeeding generations carry the genes of those forms. Eventually, less suitable forms are bred out of the population, and the more suitable forms become normative. Of course, if conditions change, different forms are, or at least may be, more "suitable".
There is much, much more to it than that, but the process is called "natural selection".
Its a very simple question.
No, it is a complex question, with complex answers. The basics are easy to grasp, but we continue to develop and refine our understanding of the specifics. That' science for you.
The empiracle evidence that evolution could happen without an intelligent force is missing
No, not really. Denial of the evidence does not make it go "missing".
(As an aside, did you even consider providing the "empiracle evidence" of which you spoke, and for which I asked?)
The probabilities are staggering
Perhaps you might explain what you think this means. I would appreciate it.
