Greetings, DoesGodExist.
You seem to be labouring under some common misconceptions about evolutionary theory. Let me try and explain:
I can't conceive that a cell with all the complexity it involves, has been assembled by pure random.
Good, because the idea of anything that complicated being assembled by pure random is dumb. Really, really dumb. Fortunately, it's not how evolution explains it.
People often describe evolution as 'by chance'. This has some truth, evolution does contain strong random elements, but it is certainly not the whole truth. Any population of living things will contain differences (not just mutations, also new combinations of existing traits) those who's differences make them more likely to survive will have more children. That's just common sense, right? So, over time those differences will begin to become normal among that population. Small, small steps can produce complex things surprisingly rapidly (as can easily be shown by computer modelling), or big changes in an organism (as can be shown by selective breeding). So the cell didn't assemble by pure random, it slowly evolved from simpler cells, and before that from pre-cell replicators, and before that from the simplest possible replicator.
Now they (the simplest possible replicator) did come about by chance, and not very likely chance at that. We're not sure how complex they were, but they were probably in the region of forty amino acids in a chain. We know amino acids are formed under the conditions believed to be present on the early earths surface. Now, it forming by chance was very unlikely, very unlikely indeed, but given half a billion years and the entire surface of the earth even unlikely things can happen.
Why are we the only very inteligent "animals" on earth? we can make computers, and think on very metaphysical/philosophical subject...
That's a good question. The answer? Well, we're not sure yet. However we do have some good leads. Brains are horribly expensive organs. They require huge amounts of food, and relatively rare minerals to keep running. They put out a lot of heat, and they need to have their tempreture carefully maintained at all times. No simple herbivour could have one as expensive as ours, they couldn't pay the energy costs. And the fact is, most animals do very well with their level of intelligence.
I still see fishes, apes so why don't they still evolve?
They do. They have, and do, evolve to meet the requirements of their environments and fill the niches they are exploiting. They do this very well. Evolution is not directed. It isn't making humans. There is no progression of life.
I can not conceive a fish trying to go on land, he would die.
Mud skippers? Nearly all fish can survive out of water for a while. It is far than inconceivable that a species of fish living near mudflats, or in rockpools might find it an advantage to travel short distances across land, and then longer distances, and so forth.
i have read the irreducible complexity theory, and I think it's not stupid.
If I make a stone bridge, it will collapse without the key-stone. So there is no way to remove it and have a standing collection of stones, so how then did the bridge get built. I have seen no irreducible complexity theory that gets above this level. Do you have some examples that you have found convincing.
Hope this helps. I'll leave it there for now, feel free to ask any questions you have.
™ Version 4.2