Doesn’t the fact that “experts” say there are distinct species and seemingly no cross over fossils so that the theory of evolution is self defeating and counter intuitive? For example there are no Homo Erectus / Neanderthal hybrids at all. Neanderthals “suddenly appear”. Well that is not good enough explaination unless you believe in creation.
There are plateaus of development, which have been explored extensively.By Niles Eldredge, for one.
Basically, it is very difficult for us, as presumably (if you accept evolution theory) living at the latest microsecond of evolution, to conceive of the vast time spans involved, and on the other hand the minute changes that appeared and were transmitted or disappeared.
I’ve always seen that as the fundamental problem in understanding evolution.
We have such a short life span and tend to see things in much briefer spurts of time.
If you can imagine a tiny dot, which is a permanent change in a species, among the sands of the sea or the stars in the sky, you can see how it is possible and likely that competitors that were infinitesimally different vanished completely, leaving no fossil record at all for us to see. The fossil records that we have is another tiny dot, in the enormous galaxy of organisms that did or could have produced fossils that we have not found.
The whole thing is a matter of dimensions. Yes, if a man develops a trait that is considered ugly, women are not goin to like him, but that is anthropomophizing man, for lack of a better phrase. It’s viewing evolution through the lens of our own experience and the paltriness of the physical evidence of any particular change.
You can’t pick one trait and say we have no evidence of how it changed. Even Darwin was stumped by the eye.