Evil Atheists

[Captain Scarlet]

Hi, I have no axe to grind I just explain my convictions, as you do. Micro evolution is true, within species and within certain parameters and apparently vaccilates. Life evolves? Yes?

No convictions required. Evolution is a fact, natural selection is the theory which best explains those facts You have already received this answer, don't come back with willfully ignorant arguments. It's good you accept evolution, as there is NO distinction at all between micro and macro evolution. This is a tired argument of the solipsists who claim evolution isn't true. Macro evolution isn't a thing that's separate and different from micro evolution. It is simply the accumulation of hundreds, thousands, millions of micro evolutionary steps. A handy shorthand term to fast forward thousands of years between evolutionary milestones. Ask yourself this, if you accept microevolution happens, what would happen if you accumulate all these steps over 4bn years?

Please refer me to intermediate species (not drawings and fakes).

Consider yourself referred. Go look at talkorigins.org. They have an excellent starters guide for the major intermediate forms recognized by paleontologists.

And how did life start from inanimate material?

No one knows, including theists. There are conjectures and hypothesis only, none have these have risen to the status of a theory. Abiogenesis is the field of research. The problem is we only have a very vague idea about early earth conditions and the concomitant environment in which life began. It is a very complicated question with many, many possible lines of research. Infact it is even hard to tell life from non-life and scientists argue all the time just about that. The only thing we have never seen however is an immaterial hand appear from the sky and zap rabbits into existence. So scientists tend not to start from that premise.

You will know that non-directional changes is implied in evolution. Then how come the eye, lungs etc develope? Why?

This is another ignorant argument. You really need to understand this subject a little better to engage in it, else you fall into the Kent Hovind and Ted Haggard brackets of understanding, ie zip.

Evolution is a remorseless and pitiless process but it is not directionless. Life evolves to adapt better to it's environment. If you are able to tell which way is up because you have some light sensitive cells on your head, you might just benefit from that. You and your descendants might just survive better, and slowly over a very long time those cells.....well you can look that bit up. Lungs are thought to be adaptations from swim bladders in fishes, ie lobe finned, crossoptergians. You see the same adaptation today in the African lungfish, a ray finned fish, that are capable of spending time out of the water; fascinating creatures. It is an example of something called convergent evolution. In addition you will see how the hearing is slightly altered in these fish as sound travels differently in water than in air. They a however still fairly poor at hearing in air as they lack a tympanic membrane.

Maybe an answer to some of the following will also be interesting:
How and why did Single-celled animals evolve (very complex creatures)?
How did it all start -the very beginning?
Natural selection results in changes to different species. If the first single cellorganism were reproduceds somehow (please explain to me why the possibility for reproduction need to have been present), why would it change to something else? Why would the need exist? I would like some light on the subject as you seem quite convinced of your position.

a quiz great:
1. evolution by means of natural selection
2. no one knows
3. sexual reproduction is able to accelerate variations in a species and thusadaptive fitness. It is also fun.

Now are you going to ask: why are there still monkeys?, or have you ever seen a dog give birth to a cat? Or can we move on? Honestly you must think no one here has ever heard these arguments before.