If you believe evolution is false, why did God or The Designer create all those intermediate species?
Fundamentalist Creationists (and Intelligent Design proponents) say that creatures appear suddenly with no precursors. So intermediate species are not needed. Only evolution demands intermediate forms. At his time, Darwin hadn't yet seen many intermediate species, but he predicted we would find them. And we have found them in vast numbers.
So... why did the supernatural Creator/Designer create so very many intermediate forms, with gradual tranformations from one major form ("kind") to the next?
Over 90% of all species that ever lived are now extinct. But neither divine creation or intelligent design work by trial and error. Only evolution works by trial and error.
If a creator can just create a species, why were so many intermediate forms created?
If a designer can just design a species, why were there so many failed (extinct) attempts?
Nice readable document about the fossil evidence of continuous transformations from one species to the next:
Reptile to Mammal Transition:
Reptile to Bird Transition:
And my personal favorite. To test evolutionary theory, scientists identified a gap in the transition from fish to amphibian, determined when it would have lived and where it would have lived, then they went out to find examples of the missing species. They found 5 examples - evolution passed the test:
(click the 'next' button to page through this easy-to-follow story)
Good video of presentation by biologist on intermediate species:
Here is a great video addressing the false claim that there are no transitional fossils:
It's a sincere question - I'd like the creationist/ID interpretation of the hundreds of transitional fossils.
Fireball - Creationism and Intelligent Design are faith-based, so this is the right section to ask.
Can someone who is a creationist or ID proponent please explain why the Creator/Designer made all these in-between species? I'd like to understand why the Creator/Designer seemed to evolve life through trial and error.
Fancier_rmv04: Archaeopteryx is more closely related to this dinosaur than to a bird. You're a little behind on your paleotology:
But there is no denying it shares both reptile (dinosaur) and bird characteristics - that is not in dispute.
So why was it created, and why is it extinct?
Mr. B: The Intelligent Design textbook "Of Pandas and People" says that new species "appear" without transitional forms. You should read it.
And your "bomb in a mountain doesn't make a cathedral" analogy fails utterly. Two cathedrals can't get together and create a litter of baby cathedrals - life is different.
If you accept evolution, as you do in your answer, then you know that small undirected changes over time DO lead to significant changes in species. So you already know that life evolved from simpler life through natural processes. Something no building can do.
But let's say you're right and there *IS* an intelligent designer directing evolution, then why did he/she/it guide evolution into millions of dead ends over the past 3 billion years?
- lainiebskyLv 71 decade agoFavorite Answer
Creationists aren't allowed to know about the transitional species. They are required to repeat "There are no transitional fossils" a dozen times a day until they can parrot it whenever someone mentions evolution.
- 1 decade ago
"Many of those so called "missing links" are really fully form creatures."
All of them are. Every creature that has ever lived and reproduced has been a fully formed creature. Your desire for a half-something half-something else is a result of your ignorance about how evolution works, and is nothing more than a popular creationist straw man.
"Many of those "missing links" were found only in fragments like just a piece of a skull or a tooth and not a complete creature and somehow scientists came up with these creatures even though they had no idea what creature it even was."
Which fossils are you referencing specifically? What are your problems with the methods used in evaluating them and the conclusions reached?
"Once they discovered a tooth that they said was a humanlike creature only it later turned out to belong to a pig."
And? There have been plenty of faked fossils, including some that were purported to be human ancestors. They were all found out by comparison with the plethora of real human ancestor fossils by scientists, not creationists with their fingers in their ears screaming that it wasn't real.
- FayLv 44 years ago
Youre missing something here, Rick. They think that all fossil evidence is false, planted evidence from Satan. So, the question makes no sense because they refuse to look at the evidence of fossils.
- FAT MANLv 61 decade ago
ID proponents don't say that creatures appear suddenly out of thin air, they say that life and the universe are too complex and fine-tuned to be the result of random and chaotic activity. ID doesn't even necessarily deny evolution, it uses evolution to build its case.
It's kind of like this. We know (or believe we know) that the universe began with the Big Bang -- an explosion containing all of the matter in the physical universe. Evolutionists say -- well, they don't say it directly, but they imply -- that all of that lifeless matter assembled itself into organic life forms with no instruction or direction other than an explosion. ID essentially says that's stupid.
For example, I think this is a fair comparison of evolution and ID. Imagine you stick a piece of dynamite in the side of a mountain and send the rocks scattering. It doesn't matter how many mountains you blow up, the matter will never randomly assemble itself into a cathedral with stained glass windows, flying buttresses, pews, and an altar. If you're trying to build something as complex as a medieval cathedral, you need blueprints and meticulous structuring, like the genetic codes in our DNA and all the laws of nature that govern our universe.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
The dinosaurs were wiped out...man came later. Well, why are there so many forms of the primate now along with man upon this earth?
The missing link...is it a proven fact? Did they actually find it or is it another form of something else?
- 1 decade ago
Perhaps Genesis is misinterpreted and evolution is misapplied.
Could Genesis be about the restoration of the earth after the last great mass extinction that occurred about 10-12,000 years ago during the Pleistocene-Halocene boundary. It says that modern animals were "made after their kind," or in other worlds modern animals were made similar in DNA structure to the preexisting prehistoric animals. Genesis is more akin to God using genetic engineering to interfere with evolution.
- logjam600Lv 61 decade ago
Ok, I'm gonna come at you from way out in left field, here: I've done a lot of reading and study on this, as evolution and its place in our lives has long been an interest. (I have 9 books from Stephen J. Gould, "America's Evolutionist" in my library.) I also read near-death experiences, and past-life hypnosis regression studies, plus the scriptures. Here's how I put it all together: In the beginning, there were an infinite number of life forms, or intelligences that wanted to go on and have spirit, then mortal bodies consistent with the form of life they wanted to stop their progression at. We went all the way, choosing to be created in the image and likeness of God. Your dog chose to stop at "dog".
To let us in on the "fun" of creation, God let us design and develop life forms beginning at the most simple and on up to and including the most complex, human. The many extinctions are the "error" part of trial and error; the life forms we experimented with and developed deserve the best form, or body they can get, as they'll have to live with it forever, so if they try it on and don't like it, like a woman taking back a dress she bought because it just doesn't fit right, well, that's to be expected, even if it means a rejection, or extinction rate of 90%+.
I don't see it as intelligent design so much as intelligent experimentation. That puts me into neither the fundamentalist religious camp, nor the science community, which is right where I like to be: in the middle, with both extremes throwing stuff at me. Life is fun!
- 1 decade ago
Many of those so called "missing links" are really fully form creatures.
Like that Archaeopterx has been proven to be a true bird and that fish to amphibian was found alive and well off the coust of south america and that was discovered to be 100% fish and nothing more. Many of those "missing links" were found only in fragments like just a piece of a skull or a tooth and not a complete creature and somehow scientists came up with these creatures even though they had no idea what creature it even was. Once they discovered a tooth that they said was a humanlike creature only it later turned out to belong to a pig.
- Mama's Pink TankLv 61 decade ago
One of the most eloquent and well-thought out pieces I have seen in a long, long, long time. I had to tell you that.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Creationists think that intermediate species are supposed to be chimeras.