Originally Posted by Darknes
There is no evidence.
Why do we not see any intermediate species? Why has there never been a fossil found with partially formed organs or bones? If evolution were true, shouldn't there be more intermediate fossils found instead of individual species??
If evolution were true, and everything evolved from single cells, why are species of creatures so distinct? I would think everything would be a big mixture, making it very hard to tell the difference between species.
Species are distinct because they are in constant competition that drives them to fill distinct niches. If every organism filled the same niche, then the benefit of occupying it would diminish, so some organisms fill certain niches, others fill others, and their continued survival is typically dependent on those organisms being able to exploit resources that others cannot. That explains lack of homogeneity in proximal populations, but then consider that most populations are reproductively isolated. If you take two identical populations and put them in different environments with different selective pressures then they will, over time, become quite different, and eventually will lose the ability to interbreed if they were reunited. The "big mixture" is completely incorrect with even a superficial understanding of population genetics.
No intermediate species? Be careful from whom you get your information. There are plenty of examples of intermediate species. You have to willfully deny facts or distrust people who have no motivation to deceive you to be educated about this subject and still maintain that no intermediate species have been found. Also, I wonder what you mean by "partially formed organ or bone". Of course no species ever existed with half of a functional bone or organ... what would that do for them? Instead we see things like rudimentary lungs in some fish and amphibian species which are clearly more developed in the land-species that common ancestors of those species gave rise to.
It's common to see people try to devalue evolution by saying "it's just a theory". Of course it is. A theory is as good as you can get in science. No scientific theory can be "proven", only supported by evidence. Evolution has a tremendous amount of evidence to suggest that it is a good model of how things have happened and do happen. To not believe in evolution is to disregard observations as fabrications, or to deny that the theory of evolution fits those observations... which they do. There are lots of other theories. The vast majority are nonsense. Even the better ones are simply not nearly as good at explaining what we observe as the theory of evolution. You could say that evolution is our best guess... but that is really suggestive language... evolution is a theory supported by endless data and observation with no credible evidence to counter it.
Macroscale evolution can be tough to fathom, but the observations that led to its conception are not. If you believe that DNA is inheritable, changeable, and encodes functional proteins, and that beneficial changes will enhance survivorship while deleterious changes will decrease it, then you believe in evolution. Apply it to a few billion years and from Hydrogen atoms we have people. It's pretty cool stuff.
