I think many of the people with whom you debate agree that *something*
happened to change the nature and complexity of life over time. If we had
only fossils of Neanderthal, we would probably conclude he was the ancestor
of Sapiens. However, having found DNA of Neanderthal, scientists tell us
he is not our ancestor. Surely that example should be reason to be
skeptical about which organisms "evolved into" which other organisms in the
distant past. Maybe we won't know what happened until we have some idea of
how it happened. You seem content with the theory that chance was the force
behind evolution, and apparently become indignant with anyone who is not
satisfied with that explanation, demanding that they offer an alternative.
Should we be forced to accept all simplistic answers to complex problems,
just because nothing more reasonable has been suggested? Personally, I
suspect life might be too complex to ever be completely understood. I favor
all scientific investigation. However, those people who are satisfied that
chance is the answer won't be inclined to spend much energy looking for
anything further, will they?
Bertvan