Does any intermediate species of EVOLUTION exist?

Question

I believe in evolution but the following statement and 20 questions in the below mentioned website really confuses me..

"If evolution was ever possible, we should have now on earth billions of intermediary species, both in types and numbers."

http://www.harunyahya.com/20questions02.php

Could somebody please go through the website and give an explanation..

Answer 1

My science professors would tell me things like, "We believe in evolution because it's based on science. We observe ....." etc., and they tell you what the theory says. None of them could ever give me any real evidence that hasn't been well refuted.

The complexity lies in the fact that what you observe is interpreted through your own framework; evidence does not interpret itself. A creationist sees a fossil as evidence of a catastrophic flood, an atheist sees that fossil as evidence of natural processes.

Bible-believers (like myself) are people of faith, and so are secular people. Everyone gives their life to/for something, and that is their faith. Observations are always biased by beliefs, so YOU as a scientist have to figure out which bias is correct. As an engineer, I use science as a tool, not as a God. I've seen a lot of dishonesty in the way scientific conclusions are formed, and it doesn't surprise me.

The Bible says that the creator can be seen through what was created, so I encourage you to continue studying science and keep an open mind.

Answer 2

> 1 WHY IS THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION NOT SCIENTIFICALLY VALID?

The theory of evolution IS scientifically valid.  Question Number 1 is therefore invalid.

> 2 HOW DOES THE COLLAPSE OF THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION DEMONSTRATE THE TRUTH OF CREATION?

The theory of evolution hasn't collapsed.  But even if it had, that wouldn't demonstrate the truth of creation.  Creation would need its own evidence, and there isn't any.

> 3 HOW FAR BACK DO TRACES OF MAN GO? WHY DO THESE NOT SUPPORT EVOLUTION?

Um, depends on what you're calling Man, right?  If you're referring to all great apes, we're talking about millions of years.  Fossil evidence does tend to support an evolutionary explanation for Man.

> 4 WHY IS THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION NOT THE "BASIS OF BIOLOGY"?

Evolution is one of the major unifying principles of biology.  Question 4 is invalid.

> 5 WHY IS THE EXISTENCE OF DIFFERENT RACES NOT EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION?

It is.  It looks a lot like "genetic drift" in small founder populations being magnified as the populations increased in size.

> 6 WHY IS THE CLAIM THAT HUMAN AND APE GENOMES ARE 99 PERCENT SIMILAR AND THAT THIS CONFIRMS EVOLUTION NOT TRUE?

It's not confirmation by itself, but it's powerful corroborating evidence.

> 7 WHY IS THE CLAIM THAT DINOSAURS EVOLVED INTO BIRDS AN UNSCIENTIFIC MYTH?

Dinosaurs evolved into birds.  Question 7 is invalid.

> 8 WHAT SCIENTIFIC FORGERY IS THE MYTH THAT "HUMAN EMBRYOS HAVE GILLS" BASED ON?

These are based on Haekel's drawings of embryos.  Yup, it was a hoax.  We find hoaxes and fraud anywhere we find people.  Even in religion.  Consider the Shroud of Turyn, the miracle of the "powder into blood," and the image of Mary on burned cheese toast.

> 9 WHY IS IT DECEPTIVE TO PORTRAY CLONING AS "EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION"?

No one portrays cloning as evidence for evolution.  Question 9 is invalid.

> 10 COULD LIFE HAVE COME FROM OUTER SPACE?

Not likely, and that would only push abiogenesis to a new location.

> 11 WHY DOES THE FACT THAT THE EARTH IS FOUR BILLION YEARS OLD NOT SUPPORT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION?

Um, it's more like 4.6 billion years old.  Anyway, it's a long time -- long enough for macroevolution to have occurred.

> 12 WHY ARE WISDOM TEETH NOT EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION?

Who said they were?

> 13 HOW DO THE COMPLEX STRUCTURES OF THE MOST ANCIENT CREATURES DEMOLISH THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION?

They don't... and pre-Cambrian "small shelly fauna" was less complex than fauna after the Cambrian Explosion.  No demolition going on here.

> 14 WHY IS DENYING THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION PORTRAYED AS REJECTING DEVELOPMENT AND PROGRESS?

Because it's usually done by religious fanatics.

> 15 WHY IS IT MISTAKEN TO THINK THAT GOD COULD HAVE CREATED LIVING THINGS BY EVOLUTION?

Because you'd first have to demonstrate that God (the god of Abraham) existed, before you proved that He did anything.  The ONLY source that credits God with Creation is Moses -- and Moses was an unreliable source.  Check your Old Testament.  Everyone who disagreed with him, except Aaron, ended up spitted on a sword or killed in some other similarly disagreeable fashion.  After a short time, no one dared disagree with him.  Moses was not a scientist.

> 16 WHY IS IT WRONG TO THINK THAT EVOLUTION COULD BE CONFIRMED IN THE FUTURE?

To confirm evolution, we'd need a time machine and the ability to observe and record four billion years in the past.  That's not going to happen.

> 17 WHY IS METAMORPHOSIS NOT EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION?

Who said it is?

> 18 WHY IS IT IMPOSSIBLE TO ACCOUNT FOR DNA BY "CHANCE"?

Because DNA is pretty complicated, and doesn't have the kind of catalyzing and self-replicating properties it'd need to get started on its own.  It's more likely some other organic molecules had undergone hundreds of millions of years of natural selection before DNA became the information repository.  Some people are pointing the finger at a possible "RNA world" as a preliminary step.

> 19 WHY IS IT THAT BACTERIAL RESISTANCE TO ANTIBIOTICS IS NOT AN EXAMPLE OF EVOLUTION?

It is an example of evolution.  Those bacteria bearing the plasmids of resistance are the only ones remaining in a population after the population has been doused with an antibiotic.

> 20 WHAT KIND OF RELATIONSHIP IS THERE BETWEEN CREATION AND SCIENCE?

None.  Biblical Creation isn't science.  It's religion.

Answer 3

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=...

These youtube videos explain transitional fossils really well.  If you need more info, please view other videos on youtube by donexodus2.  They are thorough and answer many of the questions addressed by harunyaha.

1. Evolution is a valid theory.  In fact, to become a theory an idea must be generally accepted by the scientific community as a whole.  Genetics, a field that did not exist during Darwin's life has provided the answer to the issue of the mechanism by which evolution occured, solidifying evolution's standing as a theory.  

On a side note, the writer for harunyahya constantly shows his lack of understanding of evolution by discussing evolution as an explanation of the origin of life.  That's a misconception.  Evolution deals with the diversity of life.  Abiogenesis explains the origin of life.  (If you want proof of abiogenesis, look up the Urey-Miller Experiment.)

As for transitional fossils, see the youtube link I included earlier.    

2. God is supernatural and capable of breaking the laws of nature.  Science, by definition, deals exclusively with the natural world and the laws that govern it.  Therefore, any idea that deals mainly with God is not likely to be all that scientific.  

Furthermore, all the evidence the writer uses to justify creationism could also be used as evidence for intelligent design, so the writer wouldn't have even proven his point had he not used so many logical fallacies.

3. The time frame regarding neanderthals, homo erectus, etc. are well-documented and aren't debated much within the scientific community.  Some of the points in the article may show that humans existed slightly earlier than they are currently given credit for, but for creationism to be true, a human would have to be found that can be dated back to the Precambrian Era.  (The Precambrian Era is the oldest time period that contained life.  If all species existed from the started all species that fossilized would be capable of being dated to the Precambrian Era.  However, this is not the case, suggesting that creationism is inaccurate.)

4. Whether or not evolution is the basis for biology does not impact whether or not the theory is true.  

5. The writer makes a compelling point that different races fail to prove evolution... but there's one problem: Nobody ever claimed that different races prove evolution.  As the writer himself put it, geographical isolation was responsible for the differences.  However, contrary to his argument, skin color is not determined by a single, dominant/recessive gene.  Rather, it's controlled by many different melanin (skin pigment genes).  As people lived over extended times in isolated areas, certain skin colors proved advantageous for different regions.  (Hot areas led to dark skin for sunburn protection.  Cold areas led to light skin for vitamin D production.)  The gradual change of different groups' skin colors over time to best suit the environment is, in fact evidence supporting evolution.  

6. The idea that apes and humans have similar DNA just suggests that the transtition to hom sapiens was not an insurmountable one.  By the way, as far as I know, humans and chimps' DNA are 98% similar.  There have been more studies revealing this than there have been that suggest 95%.  Maybe the writer is only looking at a single study or a more distant species of monkey.  

The similarity between all creatures' DNA suggests a common ancestry, the basis of evolutionary thought.  

7. Fossils have been found that show dinosaurs, except that they have wings.  This suggests a link.  As new fossils are found the exact details of the transition are adjusted to accomodate the new info, but no fossil has been so dramatically out of place as to disprove evolution.  (All evolutionally similar organisms have similar characteristics.  as a result of a relation to a common ancestor.  If a single member of the group lacks a trait (such as a mammal without a notochord or embryonic gills), that could disprove evolution or at least dramatically change the way we understand it.)

8. Pictures of fetuses can be taken in the womb and of aborted/miscarried fetuses.  If you look at a fetus, after a certain time of development in the womb, gills can clearly be seen.  There's no complicated experimentation needed to figure this out.  All you have to do is look at a fetus and see that there are slits near the neck.  

9. Like the issue of race in #5, nobody said that cloning (in the sense of man-made clones, rather than natural occurences like twins) proved evolution.  The writer is debunking a claim that his critics never made.  

10. Could life have come from outer space?  It doesn't matter.  This is a question of abiogenesis (see my answer to #1 for the definition), not evolution.  The Urey-Miller Experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey... clearly showed that abiogenesis was possible.

11. Again, the writer concerns himself with abiogenesis, not evolution.  Also, the writer confuses evolution and/or evolution with spontaneous generation.  Spontaneous evolution is the defunct idea that life can come from non-life in a modern environment.  However, abiogenesis is the idea (which was proven possible) that life can be synthesized from inorganic manner in an oxygen-free, Precambrian environment.  

12. This is what's great about science: It's updated when new info is found to ensure accuracy.  Creationism, though, is rigid, and not changing.  Evolutionists admit when they made a mistake and they correct it.  Creationists just try to find a new way to justify their preconceived notions.  

13. Creationism states that the universe began with an extremely complex entity (God) in existance.  How is that plausible, but the idea that a trilobite formed over a short period is somehow too far-fatched?

14. The writer shows pictures of some people who were alive before evolution was theorized.  Why would anybody be criticized for not believing in an idea that had not existed at the time?  By the way, Einstein had a complex relationship with religion, and the quote provided in the article attributed to him discusses faith, not belief in creationism.  The Planck quote is also vague and not relavent.  

Additionally, Darwin himself was a deeply religious man.  However, if someone believes in something, that has nothing to do with whether or not his ideas are valid.

15. This is too philosophical and religious of a question to be explained through a scientific perspective.  

16. We can only base our knowledge on what we know now.  What happens in the future is a mystery.  Fortunately, we have enough support for evolutionary theory today.  

17. It's ironic that the writer uses info from Michael Behe to justify creationism, since Behe is not a creationist.  He is perhaps the world's foremost authority on intelligent design.  Furthermore, the question attempts to prove a negative.  Not only that, but even if metamorphasis doesn't provide evidence for evolution, there's still plenty of other evidence.  

Additionally, if you actually read the writer's explanation, all he actually says is that genetics control metamorphasis.  Evolutionists and creationists don't disagree about that at all whatsoever.  

18. The idea that the genome is determined by chance is a misconception.  Mutations that are helpful stay through natural selection.  Harmful mutations do not stay because of natural selection.  Mutations are random.  Natural selection is not.  

19. The two possible ways to gain antibiotic resistance are mentioned in the article.  However, by definition, maintaining traits useful to one's environment (such as an antibiotic-filled environment) is itself an example of microevolution.  The writer actually disproved his own point.  

20. This question is pretty much answered by what I said previously about the writer not understanding abiogenesis.  The Urey-Miller experiment invalidates much of the writer's analysis.  In additionally, my response to #2 covers the rest of what was written for question #20.

Answer 4

If you refer to intermediate species as ones with partially evolved parts... like a half arm, half wing thing... then the theory of evolution does not predict intermediate species.  Intermediates are usually not very functional.  

If they were, they would be maintained and would not be intermediate but final versions.

Answer 5

There's just too much nonesense on that site to go through point-by-point.  I recommend the TalkOrigins website.  It specifically addresses many of the points that Harun Yahya makes (none of the points that he made were novel - they were simply a regurgitation of common Creationist arguments, most of which have been answered or discredited).

As for the quote you gave, it shows the author's basic lack of understanding of evolutionary processes.  There have been billions of intermediary species... but most of them have gone extinct.  Whether they were edged out by a newly (and better) adapted species or the entire species (as one population) evolved into another, most of the intermediate species ceased to exist.  When you add in mass extinction events (asteroid impacts, sudden climate change, etc), you can see why we have the limited number of species that are around today.

The idea that there aren't many different *types* of species is also wrong.  True, the various forms that organisms take is fairly limited *but* within those boundaries is an incredible array of subtle differences.  If you look at mammals, they all have the same basic arrangement of bones in their legs/arms/wings/fins, but in each species, the arrangement and sizes are a little different.  This is because evolution rarely comes up with a whole new structure.  Most evolutionary changes are slight alterations of existing structures.  When you look at the process over millions and millions of years, dramatic changes do take place, but they are almost always many successive duplications and alterations of existing structures.

The Creationist arguments seem to be tailored specifically to confuse people.  They are usually comprised of two logical fallacies.  The first is confusing the unknown with the unknowable - saying that since we don't have the answer now, we can never know the answer (even though most of their "unanswerable questions" have already been answered by the time they get around to asking).  The second fallacy is a false dichotomy.  They try and poke holes, deliberately misrepresent, and selectively ignore parts of evolution... since in their minds, if evolution isn't true, then it's rock solid proof of Creation.  In effect, they argue that since the sky isn't red, then it cannot be any color other than green, all the while never bothering to look up.

*Edit*

I completely agree with Suitti's comment about the gaps in the fossil record.  Each gap you fill leaves two more.  Rather than look at the evidence, the Creationists focus on the gaps... in effect, they complain that the fossil record isn't a full-motion video of every second that life has existed.

Answer 6

First off, here is a great video on human evolution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GEh1u5fF...

As far as an intermediary species goes... you mean one transitioning from one species to another?  It's impossible to say what the future will bring, but the lungfish strikes me as an "intermediary species" ie, one that shares the traits of more than one type of species.  It has both gills and lungs for instance, and some traits of both amphibians and fish.

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

Another example might be the platypus and other monotremes.  They are mammals but lay eggs, etc.

I have never seen a creationist argument that isn't full of holes.  You have to love the creationist mind set.  They will deny evidence that is right in their face, but then go through huge what if stretches to prove that there really was a world wide flood in the middle of recorded history or that the world is really only 6000 years old despite all the evidence to the contrary.  I've never seen such willful stupidity anywhere else.  Someone should write a book on the psychology of creationism.