Thanks Bex,

Quote
If one takes a look at the photographs, you'll find alterations in shape, but I'm still trying to figure out how this proves the theory of single celled organisms becoming complex fully formed machines.
Perhaps because "the theory of single celled organisms becoming complex fully formed machines" is not the theory of evolution, and not a theory. Rather it is an observation based on the natural history contained in the fossil record.

There is evidence of simple single cells, prokaryotes, becoming complex single cells, eukaryotes, but evolution doesn't require that this happens.

There is also evidence of single cell organisms forming colonies when attacked by a larger predator single cell organism, which allows them to survive and reproduce instead of being consumed.

Quote
How do you know the top is a more advanced state than the bottom, even if the age is different?
But evolution does not proceed towards a "more advanced state" or any goals other than survival and reproductive success. What you see is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. There is no up/down or higher/lower to evolution (it's an equal opportunity employer).

Quote
Since we know that there is variety within the same kind and certain adaptive qualities that can occur in certain environments - I can hardly see how anybody can confidentally claim this as evidence the whole evolutionary senario.
Why does it need to be anything more than evidence of the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation and the diversification of reproductively isolated populations?

That is all there is to evolution.

Quote
This is the same as we've seen with the ancient fossils presented on this forum. If this was the painstaking and lengthy effort of two evolutionists, one wonders, if in the face of the millions of examples evolution apparently has, that these guys had to go to so much trouble over a marine organism? When all they have proven is - it started as a marine organism and looks like it's remained one too.....so once again, they have failed to give any solid evidence for anything else.
Foramins are not a single organism, nor even a single species, but a Phylum in taxonomy. That's the same taxonomic level of "macroevolution" as the phylum Chordata, that includes classes such as mammals, which includes orders such as primates, which includes families such as apes, which includes genera such as Homo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foraminifera

Fish have also remained marine organisms. In each case what "remains" is not a left-over of evolution, but a result of it: they are still organisms that are adapted to the ecology in question. Fish are better adapted to live in marine ecologies than humans, for instance.

Did forams ever evolve into something else? Curiously when you only look at foram fossils all you will see are foram fossils, and thus a study of the different kinds of foram fossils will not include non-foram fossils.

Quote
Haven't yet seen the evidence for a simple celled organism's evolution into a fully formed human being or any other creature. Looks like the fossil history doesn't show it ever happened either. Believing it did, may not make it anymore a reality.
Possibly because that's not the way it happened.

Possibly because you aren't looking at the whole picture. The process of evolution from single cell to multicell life, from multicell to chordate, from chordate to fish, from fish to quadraped, from quadraped to mammal, from mammal to primate, from primate to ape, and from ape to human, all in all spans millions of years. Each of these stages is also accompanied by equally important evolution of other phylum, classes, mammals, primates, apes, and genera to humans, each of them resulting in species just as important in evolution as humans.

Quote
All the ones I gave pretty much showed the animals that exist now, still show they are much the same then. However much evolution you want to pin on them, their appearance sure isn't reflecting it. And certainly, even if there was such significant changes going on, they still didn't become anything else and the changes are not significant enough to prove simplicity became complexity over billions of years.
Curiously evolution doesn't need to prove that complexity must occur, it just needs to explain the complexity that has occurred, along with the continued existence of all life that succeeds at survival and reproduction in all the various ecologies in the world.

Each of these "stages" in evolution that are in the fossil record and that are part of the natural history of the evoltuion of life that happens to have resulted in human beings are also demonstrated by transitional fossils.

For instance we have the evolution of mammals from reptiles, from The Therapsid - Mammal Transitional Series:

Quote
Although Archaeopteryx is by far the best-known of the transitional fossils, it is not the only one, or even the best. The fossil transition from reptile to mammal is one of the most extensive and well-studied of all the transitions, and detailed series of fossils demonstrate how this transition was accomplished.

Taxonomically, mammals are distinguished by a number of features, the most obvious of which are hair (even such aquatic mammals as whales and dolphins still retain bristly hairs in their skin), and the presence of mammary glands which secrete milk, used to nourish the young. Neither of these structures is preserved in the fossil record, but fortunately, mammals can also be distinguished by a number of skeletal characteristics (particularly in the skull and teeth). In particular, mammals are distinguished from reptiles by a number of skeletal traits. Reptiles have a much larger number of individual bones in their skulls than do mammals. In reptiles, the teeth are all of the same shape, and although they vary slightly in size, they all have the same simple cone-shaped form. Mammals, however, possess a number of different types of teeth in their jaws, from the flat, multi-cusped molar teeth to the sharp cone-shaped canines. In reptiles, the lower jaw is made up of a number of different bones, and the jaw joint is formed between the quadrate bone in the skull and the angular bone in the jaw. In mammals, by contrast, the lower jaw is made up of a single bone, the dentary, which articulates with the squamosal bone in the skull to form the jaw joint. Reptiles also have a single bone in the middle ear, the stapes. In mammals, there are three bones in the middle ear, the malleus, incus and stapes (also known as the hammer, anvil and stirrup). At the top of the skull, reptiles have a small hole through which the pineal body, or "third eye", extends--this is absent in mammals. Finally, the reptilian skull is attached to the spine by a single point of contact, the occipital condyle. In mammals, the occipital condyle is double-faced.
All of these skeletal differences are seen to evolve in the transitional series of synapsids through therapsids through cynodonts to mammals, a transition that covers millions of years and hundreds of fossils, each with intermediate variations.

As part of the evolution of mammal from reptile the three bone jaw and single bone ear of reptiles change from generation to generation to generation to generation until we have a single bone jaw and three bone ear in mammals, and at one stage of this evolutionary transition there are - not one but - several intermediate fossils that have double hinged jaws, one at the "reptile" location and one at the new "mammal" location, a fully functional jaw with extra articulation:

Quote
The earliest therapsids show the typical reptilian type of jaw joint, with the articular bone in the jaw firmly attached to the quadrate bone in the skull. In later fossils from the same group, however, the quadrate-articular bones have become smaller, and the dentary and squamosal bones have become larger and moved closer together. This trend reaches its apex in a group of therapsids known as cynodonts, of which the genus Probainognathus is a representative. Probainognathus possessed characteristics of both reptile and mammal, and this transitional aspect was shown most clearly by the fact that it had TWO jaw joints--one reptilian, one mammalian: ...

In a slightly later group, known as the ictidosaurians, the mammalian part of the double jaw joint seen in Probainognathus was strengthened, while the old reptilian part was beginning to become reduced in size. In describing a member of this group known as Diarthrognathus, paleontologists Colbert and Morales point out: "The most interesting and fascinating point in the morphology of the ictidosaurians (at least, as seen in Diarthrognathus) was the double jaw articulation. In this animal, not only was the ancient reptilian joint between a reduced quadrate and articular still present, but also the new mammalian joint between the squamosal and dentary bones had come into functional being. Thus, Diarthrognathus was truly at the dividing line between reptile and mammal in so far as this important diagnostic feature is concerned." (Colbert and Morales, 1991, p. 128)

The therapsid-mammal transition was completed with the appearence of the Morganucodonts in the late Triassic. This group is described by paleontologist T.S. Kemp: ...

Thus, the fossil record demonstrates, during the transition from therapsid reptile to mammal, various bones in the skull slowly migrated together to form a second functional jaw joint, and the now-superfluous original jaw bones were reduced in size until they formed the three bones in the mammalian middle ear. The reptilian quadrate bone became the mammalian incus, while the articular bone became the malleus. The entire process had taken nearly the whole length of the Triassic period to complete, a time span of approximately 40 million years. Since the determining characteristic of a mammal in the fossil record is the structure of the jaw bone and joint, all of the therapsids up to the Morganucodonts are classified as reptiles, and all those after that are considered to be mammals. As Romer puts it, "We arbitrarily group the therapsids as reptiles (we have to draw a line somewhere) but were they alive, a typical therapsid probably would seem to us an odd cross between a lizard and a dog, a transitional type between the two great groups of backboned animals." (Romer, 1967, p. 227)
As noted, there are many intermediate stages in this transition from reptile to mammal, each of them intermediate in form between the older and the younger forms, and each of them developing through changes in hereditary traits in their populations from generation to generation.

You can also see many of these forms and their transitional stages on Therapsida: Overview with links to before and after stages.

As one can see, not only are there millions of examples of intermediate varieties in the fossil record, there are also examples of intermediate varieties in transitions for many taxonomic classifications.

Enjoy.