No, it really isn't all that crazy. Where are your links between creatures? Sure you have fossils that are slightly different then what we see today, but there are no exactly (or even mostly) in the middle creature that demonstrates evolution.
There is a good deal wrong with this statement. I think fundamentally you don't understand what the word 'species' means... it's just a bunch of organisms that kinda look alike... that's it. It is a human contrivance. In the real world, it means very little. The boundaries between species are not nice and clean like you want them to be.
It's a lot like the concept of time. There's nothing particularly special about age values. When are you considered a toddler, when are you a teenager, when are you an adult? Life is not like the Sims... there's no magic moment where you suddenly transform from one stage to the next; it's a gradual process. However, we use those terms so that we can communicate what kind of person we're talking about, in a general sense, and know that at the edges, it gets fuzzy.
If you saw a scrapbook of my life, and saw a photo at 10 years old, and a photo at 12, would you really try to argue that the two kids aren't the same person, despite a remarkable amount of similarity between the two?
Remember microevolution is true, no one should debate that it all, it's a scientific fact. What I contest is macroevolution.
It's the same thing. Think of it this way. You concede that species can change over time. What if one species changes one way, and another in a different direction. Eventually, you would have a divergence (think chimps and humans), yes? And if points in the present can diverge slightly in the future, does it not also follow that points currently close but separate (again, chimps and humans) could converge in the past?
