It may not be, and I never said it was. I personally feel that it makes more sense than a single celleded organism being able to (eventually, through many other forms) turn into a human
In this light, that's even more questionable:
every human being starts out as a single cell, a zygote.
What is the problem? Creatures adapt and improve. There are all sorts of strange intermediate forms between levels of organisms that most people think of as vastly different. Even single-cellular organisms aren't separated from multi-cellular organisms by a huge gulf: there is, for example, a very small animal called a hydra that has only a layer of skin around a layer of stomach. The nervous "system" is merely a simple network of nerve cells that conducts impulses around its body. That's pretty much all it has.
Why is it so difficult to imagine that small improvements over
billions of years could create complex organisms?
And why is it easier to believe in an arbitrary power that can do anything for no good reason, rather than the power of
life which you see all the time?
So it makes sense to a lot of people does it? It partly does to me, however at kingdom/phyla/class level evolution lacks much evidence. This is the bit I am sceptical of.
What evidence do you
want? New species occur occasionally, and there is a fragmented fossil record, but massive evolutions like developing a new limb or skeletal structure aren't something we can just encourage to happen overnight in a lab.
I am also curious that you demand mountains of evidence from a relatively young theory that merely proposes that
life adapts, but you find it easy to just believe in a being that has superpowers. I don't get it. You wouldn't believe me if I said I had a power as mundane as telekinesis, and you don't believe that nature can change on its own, but you will cheerfully accept a being that came from nowhere and can change
anything with hardly a thought.
I don't know that you are quite grasping the severity of what you propose here.
Evolution at the level of classes and higher have very little evidence and seem rather increadible.
What do you
want?
Humans grow in the womb with a
tail, which is later absorbed into the lower back. A lot of snakes, whales, dolphins, etc. develop vestigial hind legs. Marsupials have a vestigial organ used for breaking through eggshells, even though they are born live.
talk.origins has a
massively detailed list of evidence for macroevolution, including in many cases a hypothetical discovery that could
destroy the particular evidence or evolution as a whole. Science is meant to be falsifiable, which means that everything we propose should have some conceptual plausible way to be proven false.
I don't expect you to read it all, of course; that would hardly be fair. The point is that evidence
exists, and that evolution has been studied far more in-depth that simply noticing cats and dogs both have four legs and going "welp I guess they're related".
Wheras genetic changes created all life forms is more far-feched to me.
Where did God come from?
What is his energy source?
How does his body work?
Where does he reside?
How do his powers work?
Where did his intelligence come from?
By this reasoning, there should be transitional forms all over the place.
I don't think "transitional form" really means anything. Purple is not a "transitional color" between red and blue; it's just a color. How do you know humans aren't merely a transitional form between an ape ancestor and something entirely new?
Please also note that fossils are a fairly rare occurrence in the grand scheme of ecology.
However, given the above, there
are in fact intermediate forms. This section also names some potential finds which could deal serious blows to our current understanding of evolution, such as a transitional bird/mammal form or fossils out of order; none such has been found.
If you then use punctuated equilibrium as an answer to this you are left with the need for huge genetic leaps. This is what seems farfeched to me
Chemistry is full of catalysts; why not biology?
