Why do people deny evolution?

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persist as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils ….We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study." - Stephen J. Gould - "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, vol. 86 (May 1987), p. 14.

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups.

— Steven Jay Gould , The Panda's Thumb[63]

Arthropods are all the evidence anyone should need.

You're here to troll this group,

or you've had your arse handed to you already, so you've re-invented (gasp, evolved, perhaps) yourself, to come back and troll.

IF YOU WANT, I'LL START ON BIPEDALITY, WHICH ALSO SHOWS HUMAN EVOLUTION OVER TIME. AND THE ABOVE DON'T SHOW ARDIPITHECUS, EARLIER THAN AUSTRALOPITHECUS AND MORE APELIKE, WHICH MAKES THE CASE EVEN STRONGER. FACE IT, QUAHOG, YOU'RE A LOON.

In quohog's case, it's necessary. He's incapable of seeing, hearing, and learning.