Why do people bash evolution when they very obviously don't know anything about it ?
487098
There is some of that.  However, there is just as much bashing of various faiths with no knowledge, too.\n\nThere is certainly no conclusive evidence of evolution.  Not even close.  Evolution has never been able to explain how supposedly "closely related" species have completely different numbers of chromosomes.  When we mate a tiger and a lion, or a horse and a donkey, which DO have the same number of chromosomes, and ARE "closely related" enough to mate, we get sterile offspring.  How in the heck did apes, chimps, and man all come from one ancestor?\n\nI've done a bit of research, and I still reject evolution.  However, I am smart enough to understand that there ARE real reasons why so many scientists have come to this conclusion, and try to always be fair to both sides.
789435
tell a scientist that a truck can evolve given a billion years and he would say you are foolish.  The same scientist would say you are foolish to say that the theory of evolution is to be believed otherwise you are foolish.  truck is much much much less complicated than even a single celled oraganism. If a scientist can't even agree that a truck can never be made without a creator how in the world can he prove that the whole world with all its extrememly complex designs which are interdependent on each other so much that its so delicately balanced evolved itself? Doesn't that sound more stupid?   plus just because there are a set of evidences that support evolution that does not mean that evolution is proved. just because you see small footprints in the sand you can't conclude it is of a dog, it could be any other animal , hence the conclusions drawn from evidences can't really be conclusive.. whatever you think I can't ever understand evolution though I have really read and seen a lot about it.\n\n-----------------\n\nlol, see its hard to believe a truck could construct itself in a billion years.. taken as a big blunder said by me .. haha..  after all scientists say that evolution did happen through a series of random chances.. so why not a random chance of getting a truck? sounds absurd, huh?  thats the kind of absurdity that even the theory of evolution has because its says that so many things much much more complicated than a simple truck evolved itself from nothing.. I mean from no life. which is really much harder to believe.. and just one sentence out of a whole argument might look stupid, but when you take the whole argument it would not look that stupid. And evolutionary proof is not conclusive.. its only supportive.. there is much difference between supportive and conclusive.. and I am not an ignorant person who simply states without knowing anything, I am really much interested in science and read and see a lot of things..
418415
evolution is just mans way of trying to understand how life got here and is how it is. Its a theory and not a proven fact. People just refuse to believe a higher power created them.\nI believe in breeding and that's it. God created basic life on the planet and then through breeding of those animals we got several different species in one classification of such.
974903
People like my Mom think that either 1) scientists are mistaken or 2) there's a giant conspiracy that all of the scientists are in on to try to disprove God.  It's ridiculous if you ask me, and I'm a Christian who totally supports the notion of evolution.  One doesn't exclude the other, but watch, all of the Christians who have never studied evolution and merely taken their pastor's word will give me a thumbs down.
1048996
Hey Bud, have you ever taken a class in evolution?\n\n"You're logic is flawed. There is plenty of evidence to show small adaptations within a species. These small variations enable animals to adapt to their environments.\n\nBut to go from that to changes from one species to another is quite a blind leap of faith and poor science as well. " Poor science according to who?\n\nHow many small variations does it take to turn one species into another?  A few small genetic variations make slight changes in organisms.... a few more make more changes... a few more make even more changes, and eventually enough of these little changes of added up so that the 2 groups of organisms are no longer able to interbreed. Thus, a new species - evolution at work.\n\nPoor science is when people who have not studied evolution try to disprove it. You come up with some pretty wacky ideas. Evolution is not something that animals do on purpose to improve. There is no plan, purpose, or goal to evolution. An animal that adapts to his environment (after he is already born) like your example is NOT evolution. Evolution affects populations, not individuals, and it does not 'occur' after an organism is born. Evolution only occurs when the gene frequency in the population is changed, through natural selection, random mutation, drift, etc.
859775
The line drawn in the sand has been made worse by the propaganda on evolution by those who DON'T believe that God made the world or even exists. ....and by some Chrisians who want to make the creation account in Genesis a doctrine of salvation.\n\nThese evolutionists who don't even want "intelligent design" mentioned as part of the world coming into being seem to have an anti-God agenda.  And they are using the law to try to have evolution taught as a "fact" and not a theory.    Trouble is, they don't agree with each other and have no proof of what they preach.  They believe in their form of evolution on the basis of their "faith" in their theory.   They are as soundly religious as the preachers who don't want  evolution mentioned .\n\nGod did create the world.  As I have been looking up passages, I am suprised at how many, many times in both the New and Old Testament the Bible  declares that God created the heavens and the earth. He seems to want all to know that it was HE who created all things.\nBut He does not explain how He created it.\n\nThat is my agreement with you.
838559
They do not have respect for God's Word.  They have been influenced by the popular media that no longer calls evolution a theory.  The evolutionists want so badly to believe there isn't a God so they no longer feel guilty about their lifestyles.  They have even started to influence "Christians".\n\nAll they would have to do to convince me is show me one example of where life comes from non-life.  People have been trying to prove that one BASIC principle of evolution without success.\n\nOf course I could come close to believing if a tornado would run through a junkyard and build a working 757 jet because the odds of that happening are thousands, if not millions, of times greater than the human body JUST HAPPENING WITHOUT A CREATOR.  Now who has the greater faith?\n\nHmm....
1081959
whats sad to me is the standard sheeple line of there is no proof of evolution,\n\ni could accept there is not enough evidence to support this in my mind,\n\nthe sheeple mentality is most apparent in the discussion regarding evolution, it shakes out the sheeple,\n\nit clearly separates the men from the sheeple
1155438
evolution doesn't exist...
883860
I have been studying Science for the last 40 years and as for the comments made above by my colleague Kuraimizu, I like to point out that in six paragraphs and several hundred words, he has managed to miss the truth completely. What he says is not worthy of someone who has studied science for six months. So, safely ignoring his noises, I should point out that evolution is not a hotly debated subject among scientists – it’s accepted as fact to the point where it really needs no support. Evolutionary biologists and other researchers that investigate evolution do form a community but there is no single website where we all gather to boost each other up. \n\nThere are hundreds of sites that discuss evolution, most are university or college sites that serve their students, a few seek to educate the public, and some are bogus.  If I were looking for honest information, I would avoid blogs and discussion forums and stick to the .edu and .org websites that state their intention without trying to be subversive.  The following short list contains a few sites that are representative:\n\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/\nhttp://evolution.berkeley.edu/\nhttp://lifesciences.asu.edu/evolution/\nhttp://mcb.harvard.edu/BioLinks/Evolution.html\nhttp://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evolution98/\nhttp://explore-evolution.unl.edu/
1062580
"Evolution" is a discussion of the adaptation and development of species and sub-species in respect to their environments.  "Better," "worse," "advanced" and "primitive" actually are quite meaningless in this discussion.  Similarly, "race" has utterly no significance except as an expression of certain features of environmental adaptation.\n\nHowever, since this concept was first articulated by Charles Darwin in his book, "The Origin of Species," people have had terrible debates about its validity and meaning.  Oddly enough, a great many people who absolutely deny the validity of evolution, mainly religious people, have also been among those persons who adopted its terms in a distorted concept called "social Darwinism," which has been used to support and promote racism.\n\nMost people today who say evolutionary theory is racist are attempting to smear the concept rather than deal with it.  And some of these people are terrible religious bigots.
400596
I've been debating creationists for the better part of a decade and I have still never heard a single piece of evidence against evolution (really, common descent, almsot all creationists accept evolution, though they hate the word and refuse to use the correct definitions).\n\nIf they had anything, we'd have heard of it by now.  Instead we just get, "If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?" and such nonsense.  (Hint: that question has been asked on Answers.Yahoo at least ten times since I started coming here three days ago, and it has been answered for over 100 years, GET UP TO DATE CREATIONISTS!)\n\nCreationists have no evidence against evolution.  If they did, it still wouldn't make creationism a reasonable proposition.  They need explanations for the evidence that contradicts creationism, such as the sorting of the fossil record (how did all those mangroves make it to the top?).
295216
I do believe in evolution because that just means cahanges over a period of time but,i don't believe in darwins theory of evolution or the big bang.people who are "scared" of believing in creation are looking for excuses.i don't know about sedementary rock except what my tutor  and teacher tells me.
321606
The answers I see to this question sadden me about the state of our country.\n\nThey reject evolution without understanding it.  They think "theory" is a bad word, when it is just an accurate word for a testible mechanism explaning the diversity of life on earth.  Theories are not meant to be proven, so to say that evolution is unproved is a non sequiter.  A theory is an overarching testable explanation for phenomenon.  Repeated test in geology, biology, genetics and other fields do have PROVEN expirements that support the theory.  To claim otherwise is either a lie or ignorance (usually the latter).\n\nThey think all scientists are evil, deceitful and lying, despite the fact that many of them are Christian and not one (not one, mind you) of the millions of scientist have ever come out and said "It was just a hoax!  Evolutionists are all liars!!!".\n\nThey hold that a mere religious belief somehow trumps empirical fact.\n\nAnd worst of all, they bascially say that their God is too incompenant to have used evolution as the mechanism to bring about Man.  They think he has to work like a magician pulling literal rabbits and humans out of a hat, and fail to credit him with the ability to simply create the elegant and simple mechanism of evolution.\n\nIt is indeed sad to see such strawman versions of evolution trumpeted as being the real deal.  Ignorance is not bliss.\n\nAmazingly about 60% of Americans don't accept evolution as a valid theory (again, not a bad word).  In all other industrialized nations, that number is in the teens at the highest.  We are already failing in math and science compared with the rest of the world, and this anacronistic way of thinking will only hasten our downfall as a technological powerhouse.\n\nPerhaps they should all actually study what evolution ACTUALLY is, as opposed to parroting the empty platitudes of creationist websites and ignorant preachers.
681839
There is no need to replace evolution as there is no evidence that evoultion is in any way contradictory to reality or lacking in predictive power.\n\nBTW: Shouldn't this be in biology?
859494
how can you believe in evolution when there is no proof?
72549
I too am shocked at the amount of misunderstanding and especially the amount of animosity. I know many esteemed scientists (including anthropologists and geologists) that have no problem being religious and believing in evolution. If you search the internet you will find many websites giving completely non-factual descriptions of how istopic dating works and using the small amount of uncertainty to claim it refutes all sorts of science. I have even seen attempts at disproving the sedimentary record of the Grand Canyon using this. Never mind that these self-described experts have no qualifications to evaluate these things. In my opinion they are motivated by greed and not altruism. Debunking science seems to have become a cottage industry for what I consider pseudo-religious crackpots. \n\nI think the source is a recent trend as I don't remember this hostility in the 1970's or 1980's. There are now television programs that are done professionally and broadcast daily (TBS) that try to refute all sorts of science using PhD's of theology to describe why carbon dating doesn't work, and even to refute things like dinosaur trace fossils by citing the rate of diagenesis in carbonate rocks. There is a constant problem in Texas where the creationists try to remove and destroy fossils whenever a new location is found. \n\nThe mainstream media doesn't help because the reporters and editors appear to be poorly educated in science. I recently watched a CBS Sunday Morning news piece comparing evolution and intelligent design and to my horror they constantly referred to both as scientific theory- effectively equating them as equal in status to millions of viewers. They hardly even mentioned that ID is not science and that it will never qualify as scientific theory. \n\nThere seem to be so many people who never learned the scientific definition of a theory that it becomes easy to confuse the public by implying that anything labeled as a theory is only a conjecture, and I think with this weakness that far too many people decide evolution can be dismissed as unreliable and unproven. I almost wish science would create a new terminology to replace the word 'theory' in order to clear up this semantic confusion. \n\nI have been very impressed by the magnitude of this problem by watching Yahoo Answers. As a former science teacher I am very disappointed that at least part of it seems to come from many young participants. I had hoped they were getting a better education in science, and at the very least had learned better reasoning skills.