Evolution of Eohippus (Horse)

Creationists love to bandy about terms such as micro-evolution and macro-evolution but they ignore the evolution of Eohippus as it demonstrates quite handily the utter rubbish the creationists are spewing.  You can read quite exhaustive detail on it in the WIKI: Evolution of the Horse.  Note also the extensive bibliography as any idea that the theory of evolution is not supported by the overwhelming majority of scientists is just more creationist spew.

The following graphic shows the evolution of the horse and the fossil record is much more comprehensive than this but the graphic shows the overview of it:

Discussion of this nature really serves little purpose as the theory of evolution doesn't conflict with anything but the most fundamental beliefs in religion.  There are questions that cannot be answered without the need for a Creator as in what created the Earth in the first place.  The answer to that comes from astrophysics but take it one step beyond and what created the Universe such that astrophysics has any meaning.

There is no reasoned answer to the question as Stephen Hawking went quite mad in explaining how there was nothing before the Big Bang and time was created when the Universe began.  The only way that can work is if time flows forward and backward from the same starting point (i.e. positive and negative time) and perhaps that is when he started dribbling on himself.  You can read more on this subject in "A Brief History of Time" by Stephen Hawking.

Biophysics plays heavily into how life arose from non-life.  How does a lifeless rock spawn complex hydrocarbons and how in turn do those chemicals become living organisms.  There are logical explanations of these processes, one of which was presented by Miller and Orgul in "The Origins of Life on Earth."  There are flaws to the logic which they freely admit but it is nevertheless one possible explanation for how life arose from nothing but chemicals.

There is another question for which there is no answer at all and that is why do you have the consciousness needed to experience anything beyond the need to avoid sabre-toothed tigers or you will get eaten.  Of course it's necessary to be able to think to survive but the bigger question in that is what requires a concept of self.

In short, there is plenty of room for God in the scientific realm.  What is unfortunate is that there is relatively little room for science in the fundamentalist realm.  American fundamentalism is doing more damage to scientific thinking than the Catholic church managed in the 17th Century when it put Galileo before the Inquisition and subsequently put him under house arrest for the rest of his life.