If evolution is fact, how come there has never been a fossil of an intermediate species found.?

Question

For example, if a bird became a monkey, then why no fossils of a monkey-bird? Also, if evolution is scientific fact, how come it contradicts the fixed scientific second law thermodynamics, which basically tells us that, in layman terms, the universe is going from order to chaos. But evolution tells us that the universe is going from chaos to order. Which is right?

Answer 1

Each individual is a transitional organism unless it is the last generation in it's line or an identical clone of it's parent and offspring. So pretty much every fossil is of an "intermediate" species.

Birds did not become monkies, but fish became reptiles. There is such a thing as a fish-reptile, we just call them amphibians.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to evolution exactly as it does to reproduction. Are you trying to say that reproduction contradicts thermodynamics? Besides, what is more chaotic than one species evolving into two or more others?

Since you are on the subject of thermodynamics, how does your alternative explanation of how the diversity of species came to exist get around entropy?

Answer 2

There are many, many transitional fossils. A recent fossil found in Greenland named Tiktaalik is a very obvious transition between sea-and-land animals.

There is no monkey-bird fossil because birds did not evolve from monkeys. They evolved from dinosaurs. There are many dino-bird transitional fossils including some with feathers.

Order can come from disorder. Have you ever seen a snowflake?

I could explain why the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not apply here, but you would have to understand both the SLOT and evolution for the explanation to make sense. I'm guessing that you understand neither.

Answer 3

Lets take on question 2 first. The second law of thermodynamics deals with a much different problem than that of evolution. Using "layman terms" is really an excuse to quote it for your own position. Evolution does not "tell" anybody anything about chaos to order; in fact it has nothing to do with that. As for intermediate species, you are either oblivious of what has been found or just unwilling to accept it. Birds becoming monkeys is more than just a change of species. Plenty of fossils of intermediate species have been found, including intermediate species of the genus Homo, which is currently represented by us.

If you don't like evolution, that's fine. But don't buttress your arguement with false premises.

Answer 4

Birds didn't become monkeys, for one thing. Dinosaurs became birds, and there are plenty of intermediary fossils to prove it. Monkeys and us are descendents of a small mammal--not a lot different from a modern rat or possum--and there are intermediate fossils to show this as well.

As for chaos to order, your perspective is a tad narrow (surprise.) The elements that add up to a living species get recycled right back into the earth, because everything dies. The earth itself provides the very specialized obstacle course that strains out all organisms except those suitable for continued life. God set it up that way.

Answer 5

Wow, this gets really old. There ARE intermediate species found, and have been found, for awhile. Sorry, not every species over the last 200 million years was perfectly preserved for us to lay out in a line for you. Please read up on the current literature involving the SCIENCE of evolutionary development, and stop trying to find shortcuts to disparage it.

and the 2nd law DOES hold true, in the time-frame of the universe as a whole. Stars still evolve from interstellar gases, live their lives, and are returned to space, but as a WHOLE, the universe undergoes ENTROPY, which is what, in layman terms, you are trying to describe.

Answer 6

No intermediate species? What planet are you on? Not heard of Lucy? (intermediate primate / human). Birds didn't become monkeys. Both originated from a common ancestor (probably before the dinosaurs - as dinosaurs are kinds of birds (probably) , whereas mammals were already around at the time)

Go and visit a natural history museum or something.

Answer 7

There are tons of transitional fossils. The 2nd Law of thermodynamics DOES NOT say that the universe goes from order to chaos. It says entropy will only increase, not decrease.

Answer 8

There has, and are you that stupid to suggest that monkeys evolved directly from birds? You cannot be that dumb. Also the laws applying the thermodynamics is just that. Laws that apply to thermodynamics and not evolution. Your biblical arguments are about as sound as your knowledge of science.

Answer 9

The Second law of thermodynamics states that in a closed system, energy tends toward entropy.

Go outside tomorrow and look up. There is an amazing discovery waiting for you: we call it "The Sun".

You know, that huge source of energy that is outside the Earth's system....

It is truly sad how many Creationists have never seen the Sun.

Answer 10

First, birds did not become monkeys. From what we understand, dinosaurs were not reptiles: they were warm-blooded. While most large dinosaur species died out, several very small species of dinosaur adapted and evolved into birds and mammals. Here there are literally thousands of species, some dead-ends, some that started to evolve and stopped, some that started to evolve and died out, and others that evolved completely. It's important to understand that this happens in stages and there are often a lot of stages between. For a long time, people wondered why there were no half-neanderthal/half-cro-magnon people. Then we did DNA tests that showed that we are NOT direct descendants of neanderthals: they were a species that simply failed, and we were from a different line. The two species either did not or could not mix.

The terms 'order' and 'chaos' are misleading. I would say 'simplicity' and 'complexity'. The universe, under the 2nd law of thermodynamics, is NOT going from 'order to chaos' but rather from simplicity to complexity: the degree of complexity being on an order of magnitude that without analysis would appear to be random and chaotic, but which, on analysis, would, as in all things, being to show patterns.

Likewise, evolution is not going from 'chaos to order' but again, from simplicity to complexity in the way that a species, acted on by the environment and natural selection, may theoretically divide into more species. If I take 1000 pairs of frogs, split them into groups of 10 pairs, and separate them into 100 separate but identical environments that have been optimized for their survival, and then with each generation, introduce variables to each environment, thus causing each environment, by subtle degrees, to become more unique with each generation, then it stands to reason that after (x) number of generations, I could have 100 groups of frogs that have specialized into frogs capable of living in environments that are remarkably different (on an order of magnitude according to the number of generations) than the original, to the point that future groups of frogs would not be capable of survival if reintroduced to the original environment, or vice-versa. That would be directed evolution. However, if I allow NATURAL selection, that includes variables beyond my direct control, in which case I may predict that there will be unforeseen changes to each group as recessive genes and dominant genes recombine within each group, both as a result of environmental change, and according to behavioral variables unrelated to environment (for example if a group of frogs suddenly finds a particular color of frog more attractive than another). Again, each group of frogs will eventually grow to become a different species, over a number of generations, with EACH generation being a step. You're not going to have BIRD to MONKEY-BIRD to MONKEY. You're talking a LOT of steps for that, which may or may not include a monkey with wings, or a hairy bird!

The answer was long, but I wanted to give an example, and not merely an opinion.