Why do people deny evolution?

Really in between two species. you know one half eye, one half nose and well, you get the picture. So NO FULLY FORMED ONES

No such thing as you describe is predicted by evolution. This is the straw man you are presenting. It is not the actual theory of evolution.

Transitional forms are known to science and are routinely confirmed, but you don't trust science, so you don't accept them.

You are also willfully blinding yourself to understanding the actual theory of evolution so that you can cling to your straw man fallacy.

There is nothing that can be presented to you. You don't trust science and you don't understand evolution.

How do you decide what sources of information to trust?

Are you really sure? Darwin thought otherwise,

It was the absence of transitional fossils that first made me question Darwin's idea of gradual change. I realised, too, that the procedures used to date rocks were circular. Rocks are used to date fossils: fossils are used to date rocks. From here I began to think the unthinkable: could Darwinism be scientifically flawed?

"I became an almost daily visitor at the Natural History Museum, looking more closely again at all the famous evidence I had been taught about: the evolution of horses, Archaeopteryx -- half-reptile, half-bird -- the peppered moth, the Galapagos finches and all the other totems of Darwinism."

"One after another they crumbled as I subjected them to even routine journalistic scrutiny. At first I thought I must be mistaken -- then I began to discover one by one the many scientists around the world who had already realised the emperor has no clothes, but who cannot speak out without jeopardising their careers and even their jobs."

"At this point my long years as a journalist took over and I started turning over stone after stone and making one amazing discovery after another. In fact, all the scientific work to show that Darwinism doesn't really work had already been done. Plenty of people with a religious agenda had tried to to overturn the theory. But no-one had put it all together before from a purely scientific standpoint.

"As a science journalist and writer with a lifelong passion for geology and palaeontology -- and no religious beliefs to get in the way -- I was in a unique position to investigate and report on the state of Darwin's theory in the 1990s. The result was unambiguous. Darwin doesn't work here any more.[/b]"

"Darwinism has never had much appeal for science outside of the English-speaking world, and has never appealed much to the American public (although popular with the U.S. scientific establishment in the past). However, its ascendancy in science, in both Britain and America, has been waning for several decades as its grip has weakened in successive areas: geology; paleontology; embryology; comparative anatomy. Now even geneticists are beginning to have doubts. It is only in mainstream molecular biology and zoology that Darwinism retains serious enthusiastic supporters. As growing numbers of scientists begin to drift away from neo-Darwinist ideas, the revision of Darwinism at the public level is long overdue, and is a process that I believe has already started." Richard Milton, Shattering the Myths of Darwinism (Rochester, Vermont: Park Street Press, 1992, 1997), p. 277.

I first began to question the received wisdom on Darwinism when I became interested in geology and palaeontology thirty years ago. It is a peculiarity of the British Isles that they contain every geological formation — and hence practically every type of fossil — found on Earth. By taking a trip around the coasts and quarries of Britain, anyone can examine the geology of the whole world for themselves. And here I found my first puzzle. Why was I unable to find, in this perfect natural laboratory, evidence of evolution in the rocks? There should be millions of transitional species between ancestral creatures and more modern ones — but where were they?

It wasn’t just me who couldn’t find them. Scientists had been diligently searching every continent for fossil evidence for 150 years, yet had not found a single uninterrupted sequence of fossils demonstrating evolution from one species to another

The best that anyone had been able to manage was to assemble isolated fossils from different strata of different ages which looked anatomically similar and to claim that they must be ancestors and descendants — because no other rational explanation was possible.

Yet this failure to find conclusive fossil evidence is inexplicable if life really has evolved in the way Darwin envisaged. The Earth’s crust should be filled with sequences of evolving fossil species.

It ought to be relatively easy to assemble hundreds of species arranged in lineal descent. Schoolchildren should be able to do this on an afternoon’s nature study trip to the local quarry: but even the world’s foremost palaeontologists have failed to do so with the whole Earth to choose from and the resources of the world’s greatest universities at their disposal.

This basic failure of science to substantiate the fundamental theory of Darwinism switched on my journalist’s antennae. Like most reporters, I was born with a suspicious mind; the kind of mind which says ‘show me’. But when I asked science to show me the evidence for Darwinism and tried to make their story ‘stand up’ in the way that reporters are trained to, I encountered only nervous coughs and shy smiles.

Quehoniaomath wrote:

The ONLY thing I ask is for evidence. there seems to be NONE.

You have made it clear that you do not trust science, so what type of evidence could we possibly offer that would satisfy you?

Even when it is produced, he just jumps into hyper-gear denialism. But try asking him for some equivalent evidence for his god hypothesis and the wheels come off the wagon.

think the wheels are off his wagon to start with.

Even when it is produced, he just jumps into hyper-gear denialism. But try asking him for some equivalent evidence for his god hypothesis and the wheels come off the wagon.

And all you do is to throw lame insults, without meaning..