Mr_Spinkles, there are life forms that are alive and well on earth at this very moment that do not fit neatly into one taxonomic category or another. Therefore, it should not be a surprise if fossils are occasionally hard to classify. What does that prove? Nothing.
The biblical term "kind" does not have a scientific equivalent. The scientific term "species" certainly does not apply to "kind". Therefore, the large number of species we see and the fact that a species can become another species does not prove evolution or disprove the Bibles statement regarding "kinds". The fact that species resemble or have characteristics of other species may only prove that they are of the same "kind", but does not necessarily prove evolution. For every proof presented by one the other will have a counter-proof or will take the same proof and will use it as a proof for his side of the argument. For example, as far as I know from all my reading, even in the lab, the best they have been able to do is produce another species, in other words, they have yet to make a bird turn into something that wasnt a bird. But for the sake of argument, lets say they do succeed someday. You will claim it to be proof of evolution and I will say it is proof of a Creator because it took highly trained specialists who knew exactly what they wanted to produce so very many tries in the highly controlled and very unnatural environment of a lab to come up with it, in other words, that they proved that it only happens when caused to happen. Again, nothing proved.
You say: The physical universe, on the other hand, is clearly not designed or tailored specifically for the sole benefit of human existence. I look at the same universe and see where exactly the opposite is true. Even though most scientists now trace the universe back to a very small, dense beginning (a singularity), this key issue cannot be avoid: If at some point in the past, the Universe was once close to a singular state of infinitely small size and infinite density, we have to ask what was there before and what was outside the Universe. . . . We have to face the problem of a Beginning.Sir Bernard Lovell.
And what is more, this implies more than just a source of vast energy, the energy released at the big bang, and the explosive or chaotic, haphazard and uncontrolled release of that energy. Rather, foresight, intelligence and direction are also needed because the rate of expansion seems very finely tuned. If the Universe had expanded one million millionth part faster, then all the material in the Universe would have dispersed by now. . . . And if it had been a million millionth part slower, then gravitational forces would have caused the Universe to collapse within the first thousand million years or so of its existence. Again, there would have been no long-lived stars and no life.Sir Bernard Lovell.
Can experts now explain the origin of the universe? Many scientists, uncomfortable with the idea that the universe was created by a higher intelligence, speculate that by some mechanism it created itself out of nothing. Does that really sound reasonable to you? Such speculations usually involve some variation of a theory (inflationary universe model) conceived in 1979 by physicist Alan Guth. Yet, more recently, Dr. Guth admitted that his theory does not explain how the universe arose from nothing. Dr. Andrei Linde was more explicit in a Scientific American article: Explaining this initial singularitywhere and when it all beganstill remains the most intractable problem of modern cosmology.
If experts cannot really explain either the origin or the early development of our universe, should we not look elsewhere for an explanation? Indeed, you have valid reasons to consider some evidence that many have overlooked but that may give you real insight on this issue. The evidence includes the precise measurements of four fundamental forces that are responsible for all properties and changes affecting matter.
The four fundamental forces come into play both in the vastness of the cosmos and in the infinite smallness of atomic structures. In fact, everything we see around us is involved. Without the ultra-fine tuning of these forces, elements vital for our life (particularly carbon, oxygen, and iron) could not exist. Already mentioned is one force, gravity. Another is the electromagnetic force. If it were weaker, electrons would not be held around the nucleus of an atom and atoms could not combine to form molecules. Conversely, if this force were stronger, electrons would be trapped on the nucleus of an atom. There could be no chemical reactions between atomsmeaning no life. Even from this standpoint, it is clear that our existence and life depend on the fine-tuning of the electromagnetic force.
And consider the cosmic scale: A slight difference in the electromagnetic force would affect the sun and thus alter the light reaching the earth, making photosynthesis in plants difficult or impossible. It could also rob water of its unique properties, which are vital for life. So again, the precise tuning of the electromagnetic force determines whether we live or not.
Equally vital is the intensity of the electromagnetic force in relation to the other three. For example, some physicists figure this force to be 10,000,- 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (1040) times that of gravity. It might seem a small change to that number to add one more zero (1041). Yet that would mean that gravity is proportionally weaker, and Dr. Reinhard Breuer comments on the resulting situation: With lower gravity the stars would be smaller, and the pressure of gravity in their interiors would not drive the temperature high enough for nuclear fusion reactions to get under way: the sun would be unable to shine. You can imagine what that would mean for us!
What if gravity were stronger proportionately, so that the number had only 39 zeros (1039)? With just this tiny adjustment, continues Breuer, a star like the sun would find its life expectancy sharply reduced. And other scientists consider the fine-tuning to be even more precise.
Indeed, two remarkable qualities of our sun and other stars are long-term efficiency and stability. Consider a simple illustration. We know that to run efficiently, an automobile engine needs a critical ratio between fuel and air; engineers design complex mechanical and computer systems to optimize performance. If that is so with a mere engine, what of the efficiently burning stars such as our sun? The key forces involved are precisely tuned, optimized for life. Did that precision just happen? The ancient man Job was asked: Did you proclaim the rules that govern the heavens, or determine the laws of nature on earth? (Job 38:33, The New English Bible) No human did. So from where does the precision come?
Two other physical forces also relate to our life. These two forces operate in the nucleus of an atom, and they give ample evidence of forethought. Consider the strong nuclear force, which glues protons and neutrons together in the nucleus of the atom. Because of this bonding, various elements can formlight ones (such as helium and oxygen) and heavy ones (such as gold and lead). It seems that if this binding force were a mere 2-percent weaker, only hydrogen would exist. Conversely, if this force were slightly stronger, only heavier elements, but no hydrogen, could be found. Would our lives be affected? Well, if the universe lacked hydrogen, our sun would not have the fuel it needs to radiate life-giving energy. And, of course, we would have no water or food, since hydrogen is an essential ingredient of both.
The fourth force is called the weak nuclear force and controls radioactive decay. It also affects thermonuclear activity in our sun. Mathematician and physicist Freeman Dyson explains: The weak [force] is millions of times weaker than the nuclear force. It is just weak enough so that the hydrogen in the sun burns at a slow and steady rate. If the weak [force] were much stronger or much weaker, any forms of life dependent on sunlike stars would again be in difficulties. Yes, this precise rate of burning keeps our earth warmbut not incineratedand keeps us alive.
Furthermore, scientists believe that the weak force plays a role in supernova explosions, which they give as the mechanism for producing and distributing most elements. If those nuclear forces were in any way slightly different from the way they actually are, the stars would be incapable of making the elements of which you and I are composed, explains physicist John Polkinghorne.
