Why does everybody get so confused about the fact and the theory of evolution.?

Question

The fact that evolution occurs is plain and observable. You don't even need fossils, live stock does fine, even better than fossils. The theory is about how it comes about, and what it might mean.

I want to thank everybody for their answers so far.
there are only two so far that adress the question either positive or negative. Again thank you all.

Answer 1

People are confused about what a theory is.

No one would deny that gravity exists, yet no one can explain the exact mechanism that makes it work. There are many theories to explain the fact of gravity.

Or, suppose you are a cop and find a dead body. You would look at the evidence (bullet wounds, a jealous lover) and develop a theory to explain the fact that someone died.

Evolution is the same. It is an undisputed fact (there has NEVER been an article disputing evolutionary theory in a peer-reviewed scientific journal) that humans and apes shared a common ancestor. Scientists may argue over a couple hundred thousand years here and there, but no one claims spontenous generation like the creationists do.

Answer 2

It's willful ignorance fueled by politics.

You're right - evolution is a fact. We directly observe it. The creationist knee-jerk "not macroevolution!" response reflects ignorance of the nature of species: "macroevolution" is simply microevolution. The fact that the current forms of life evolved from earlier forms is as well-established as anything we know about the world, and only politics and propaganda can account for the widespread denial of that fact.

When a person insists that "evolution is just a theory, not a fact", that person is revealing a lazy and biased attitude towards the question.

Later: Jett clearly demonstrates that "willful ignorance" in using the propagandist "drdino" as his source, resulting in this simply false statement:

"Every animal has genetic boundaries. Dogs come from dogs, they may be big or little, have short, long or curly hair, but you'll get a dog every time".

Sorry Jett, but "dog" is simply a word that we use to describe a certain set of animals. There is no "genetic boundary". It may help you to understand this if you think about dogs versus wolves (their close kin) rather than dogs versus (say) elephants. Dr. Dino has lied to you, and sadly, you were taken in.

Answer 3

It's good that you don't need fossils because there are none that prove evolution. The kind of fossils you would need are transitional forms, which don't exist. Live stock proves evolution? OK, I got ya.
Evolution is not science. The fossils do not show evolution. They actually show complex creatures appearing suddenly during the cambrian explosion with no transitional forms before them. Darwin was aware of that problem. He said "they're out there by the millions.....you should be stumbling over them as you walk out your back door". That's a quote from Darwin. His explanation as to why they hadn't found them yet was that archeology was in it's infant stages at that time. He predicted that after he was dead they would find them by the millions. But here we are 150 years later and they still haven't found any. Stephan J. Gould who was a Harvard paleontolgist and one of the top evolutionists in the world until he died a few years ago said this:"there's a trade secret among the paleontologists of the world.....namely, that the transitional forms don't exist". My question would be...why is it a trade secret? If the evidence doesn't show evolution why don't they tell the world. The reason is because evolution is a religion just like christianity(just read Ann Coulters new book'Godless'). Evolution, like christianity, must ultimately be accepted by faith.
But christianity is faith based upon reason. Evolution is just blind faith based upon nothing. It's no surprise that Gould and Niles Eldridge eventually gave up on darwinian evolution and started a new theory called 'Punctuated Equilibrium', a theory which Richard Goldschmidt(also an evolutionist) called the 'hopeful monster theory' a name he gave to it in derision. He descibed it by saying that a reptile once laid an egg and, VIOLA, out popped a bird. If you believe that, I've got some swampland I'd like to sell you....ON PLUTO.

http://www.intouch.org/index_76034.html

http://www.pleaseconvinceme.com/home.php

http://www.reasons.org/index.shtml

http://www.tektonics.org/

Answer 4

HAHAHA....sorry, im not laughing at you, im laughing at fireballs answer. She dismisses evolution, saying she doesn't believe it. but then says it is a fact that god created us...HOW ON EARTH CAN YOU DISMISS A SCIENTIFIC THEORY THAT HAS BASIS IN RESEARCH, YET ASCRIBE ALL OF LIFE TO ANOTHER THEORY, I.E. "god"?. I love it when people talk about the Bible, calling things it teaches, "fact"...utterly stupid
People get confused about evolution because they refuse to think that man came from something other than God. They are not willing to admit that everything they have put faith in all of their lives could be false. The really sad state of this rejection is that they can not tolerate the possibility of both things. They will not change their beliefs even to the point of saying "God created evolution". They want to think that mankind is God's reason for creating the universe, that we are here solely because of his will, that we are his most important creation, etc etc.
People will say things like "The human eye is so complex and unique that it could not have evolved", even though there is evidence to the contrary. No one even considers it on the micro level, which proves evolution every day. For example, look at pesticides. Many insects have become resistent to pesticides very quickly, within a decade.
The truth is that if we didn't have religiously affiliated scientists constantly using "bad" science to refute evolution, it would already be considered fact.

Answer 5

It's about as plain and observable as the Earth being flat (all objects fall in the same direction, right?) and the center of the universe (you can see the sun and other objecst moving AROUND us!). If you question these facts, you're denying Christianity. Right?

Answer 6

Well yes, and no. There is a definite swing (not only among religionists) to the idea that the evolution of man may not be as we have always been taught it was. Many (well, some) scientists are beginning to question Darwin. It's very interesting and I will be very curious to see where they go with it.

Answer 7

Your right about livestock, longhorn cattle grew bigger horns to compete for limited vegetation in west Texas. Can't really argue with that. Now imagine what could happen to a species over millions of years of having to adapt to changing environments? Also, most people don't seem to understand that scientific theories are not like other theories in that they have to be backed up with evidence.

Answer 8

Ignorance

Answer 9

Nicely phrased question.

Anyone who raises stock has a seat-of-the-pants understanding of natural selection/Mendelian genetics. You don't breed a bad male to a good female, rather, you choose the best of the males to pregger the cows/ewes/mares.

Answer 10

So you've seen new species evolve? Or just humans breeding animals to be better? "Evolution" does not happen before our eyes. It is not plain and observable.

Creation can not be scientifically proven, but neither can Evolution.

Evolution is based on there being absolutely nothing, and by random chance everything came to be. Stages of "human evolution" are based on a single bone found. Bones that can be matched to animals living today!

If you believe in God and you turn out to be wrong, you have lost nothing... If you do not believe in God and you turn out to be wrong, you go to hell.