Macroevolution occurs

Just so that there's a proper catalogue of what hasn't been covered. Still outstanding outstanding (yes two outstandings is proper) information is thusly: Why are there pouched mammals in Australia rather than the standard live-birth mammals we have today? Why are there some in South America too? Well, the super-continent of Pangaea broke up up into Laurasia and Gondwanaland during the Triassic about 200 million years ago. With Laurasia consisting of North America, Europe and Asia. Gondwanaland consisting of South America, Africa, Australia, Antarctica, and oddly India. Well due to this geographic isolation the mammals continue to along separate courses, Gondwanaland broke freeing up Africa and India to crash back into Europe. Antarctica, Australia and South America went their separate ways during the Triassic about 135 million years ago. This split the mammals into two groups one became the modern marsupials (pouched mammals) and another became the placental mammals (like us). So we find that Australia and South America have marsupials along with some later invaders after South America ran into North America. Though, Australia's native wildlife like Kangaroos, Wombats, etc are marsupials. Now what about Antarctica? Should it have marsupials? Well, it does... or rather did. Most everything is extinct now, but when you look at the fossils in Antarctica has they are definitively marsupial mammals. And, often similar to those found in South America and Australia for the time. And yes, if you look at fossils from prior to the breakup of South America and Africa you find the same organism lived across those two continents (for example Mesosarus). Why are their specific types of mammals in different areas with regard to exactly how the planet progressed. If we found these things out of place it would be strong evidence against macroevolution, but we don't. No rabbit fossils with trilobites, apes in South America, it all fits in exactly as it should. Mutations during reproduction do occur and sometimes lead to subtle changes. Most of the time these changes are harmless and do nothing, other times they are detrimental, sometimes they are beneficial. When the changes are harmful the organisms with these changes are less likely to breed than other members of their species and less likely to pass on these detrimental genes. When the changes are helpful they are more likely to breed. And pass on this beneficial little tweak. Not every organism which could possibly exist can possibly exist, and in this fight for life, any edge helps. Compounding this process leads to organisms of amazing complexity. Some argue little changes work, but big ones can't. 'You can go 10 feet one foot in front of the other, but never 10 miles!' ----------------------------------------- Yes, you obviously cannot have a standard argument to reply to my posts. I covered a good section of the scientific understanding. Most creationist arguments depend heavily on the the flaws of scientific knowledge. On very specific matters, there's no "standard arguments" as all creationism is vague arguments of ignorance. You don't know what causes this! *sigh* You settled for giving up and asking random questions last time. That's isn't a reply. Honestly, you just try to reply... fail... then ask some more random stuff. Why not admit the truth: you don't know. My answers are good, robust, well-rounded, and evidenced. That's saying a lot. Why not admit the truth: there's very good reasons to think that I'm right. Evolution is not a religion. It doesn't make religious statements. It's the scientific understanding of why life exists as it does with the complexity that it does. Admittedly this is a question there are non-scientific explanations for but that still doesn't make it a religion. Further, there is no general overwhelming flood story among all religions. Most civilizations settle near water, especially the farming cultures live heavily in flood plains. These places tend to flood. The myth that all cultures have this myth is itself a myth. There are some flood stories in different areas. Note, if there was a world wide flood these stories wouldn't exist. Also, the Noah story is actually borrowed from an earlier story from the Asyrians called the Epic of Gilgamesh. And other abrahamic religions borrowed directly from the story itself. Starting with dirt is a far cry from a good understanding of abiogenesis. The Miller-Urey experiments show that from a pretty basic atmosphere you can build up to organic molecules. However, just being hard to understand doesn't make it impossible. It's fairly easy to view from worm to man because of the sound evidence there. The ooze to worm is probably harder (and took an extra billion years). Just being "hard" doesn't make it true. I'd be lying if I said I knew every step, but seeing as your theology holds that man went directly from dirt to man. My explanation has the benefit of actually being far more reasonable. The Second Law of Thermodynamics holds in a closed system. See that giant ball of fusion in the sky bombarding our planet with additional energy. Further, evolution works by bootstraping additional order to produce increasing order. Some have offered that evolution goes the other way against the breakdown of everything by the second law. Further, humans are no more complex than a number of mammals. There are no frozen dinosaurs. There are a couple mammoths: they froze. No. I our general body evolved from worms roughly. After that point with only slight tweaks we don't get a majorly different body type. We've lost our tails but that's about it. Though, here and there some humans are born with tails (with bones) and here and there some whales are born with legs. The standard body type wasn't quite established until fish. I recommend reading a fairly new book "Your Inner Fish", which gives a pretty good explanation of why our body types are established as they are. You aren't going to run into any animals with a backbone and more four legs. Occasionally you'll run into a weird animal with a few extra but those are developmental rather than genetic. We have two genders because it's makes for a better strategy for survival. It allows for quicker adaptation to diseases on the species level. Genes are independent, and any genetically advantageous genes aren't stuck in one individual who may possess less advantageous genes. Sexual reproduction allows these little tweaks evolution produces to thrive. Two sexes makes evolution go faster. Actually it's difficult to evolve to be 20 feet tall due to something called the squared cubed law. Further, there's not that much advantage due to height. IQ does seem to increase rather standardly, mostly due to changes in our thinking. Though, if there are any genes which result in the creation of a better brain they are rather standardly given to a larger selection of genes. What do we need to reach 20 feet up? We can pick locks and find food. We are strong and can hunt really well. Photosynthesis is pretty specific, we typically produce Vitamin D in sunlight and that's pretty useful. But, we have better ways of getting energy. Also, we take more energy than photosynthesis produces.