I agree. I havn't got the intelligence to understand half of this evolution stuff. It goes way over my head.
Evolutionists want you to think that, but it's not really all that complicated. In fact, it's kind of like the story about the kid and the emperor who went walking down the street naked. The thing which is supposed to be the big super theory of the biological sciences turns out to be a shebolleth and it doesn't take that terribly much to figure it out.
A few examples, in the way of questions for evolutionists are usually enough to give most people a flavor for it. For instance:
1. How did snakes evolve? Being a snake is actually a sort of a complex deal. You need a very long and narrow body, hearts, lungs and all that sort of stuff have to be differently shaped and packed differently than you find in normal animals, you need to know how to slither, which is a fairly complex skill... Attaining all of that would take many generations.
Consider however that the very first step along such a path (at least according to the theory of evolution) would have to be being born as a quadraplegic (without any arms or legs, due to mutation).
In the real world, there is nothing more pitiful than a creature with no arms and legs. Humans in such condition are generally kept alive by charity; animals in such a state last an hour or two before being eaten by predators. How then did the snake survive the the many generations it would take to evolve the complex features he requires after being mutated into quadraplegic sitting duck target for every predator on Earth?
2. Insect evolution. Insects are presumed to have evolved from (segmented) worms. Nonetheless there is no evidence of this having actually happened and the simplest insects are vastly more complex than the most complex worm. The pictures we see of the worm to insect transition show vast gains in complexity at every step with no explainations as to what caused that complexity. How and why did insects arise from worms?
3. Lungs. In theory, lungfish are supposed to have given rise to amphibians and amphibians to our modern land animals. Nonetheless, lungfish don't get around all that well on dry land. They use their capabilities to move from one stream to another or to bury themselves in mud and hang on until the rains come. Consider that the transition from lungfish to amphibian is supposed to have occurred during an age of insects with 2' wingspans and consider what a swarm of such insects would do to a lungfish which was trying to actually spend enough time out on dry land to become a functional land animal... How did the lungfish overcome all of that?
For that matter, if fins could turn into legs and feet, we should see it happening from time to time in the world's waters. It isn't like humans don't haul in millions of fish every year and look at them. Where are the fish with feet?
4. Metamorphoses. Metamorphoses does not exist amongst fish and yet amphibians display it. Where does metamorphoses come from and how did it "evolve"? Wouldn't a lungfish trying to evolve into a frog have enough problems without worrying about metamorphoses?
5. Insect metamorphoses. Evolutionists claim that we all start from a single cell and evolve through various forms prior to being born; that butterflies and other such insects merely spend a certain amount of time living out in the world in one of the foetal states or some such. Nonetheless butterflies and moths use cocoons and it's very hard to imagine how the caterpillar would survive his changeover without the cocoon to protect him. That says that the first such creature which ever started using such a system had exactly one generation to figure out the whole thing with cocoons or it wouldn't have made it. How did that work?
6. Paranormal capabilities. Evolutionists generally pooh-pooh this kind of evidence and attempt to discredit the people involved with such studies, since they instinctively dislike the idea of having to deal with anything like that within an evolutinoary context.
Nonetheless, there are other people and groups of people who do not have the luxury of trying to ignore things which do not fit within their ideological paradigms. The king of France in the 1400's, for instance, did not have such a luxury. The Catholic church, apparently making up in thoroughness for anything they might lack in celibacy, took several hundred years to analyze the case of Joan of Arc, and ultimately determined that at least some of her activities required information that she had no way of having other than for paranormal means; they cannonized Joan in the 20'th century.
Likewise the US military does not have the luxury of ignoring such things. You can check out:
or do your own google search on 'Stubblebine' and 'remote viewing' at your leisure. Books have been published on soviet activities in this area and I presume American general officers are not paid to investigate pseudoscience.
Rupert Sheldrake's www site is http://www.sheldrake.org
Sheldrake is a former director of studies in cellular biology at Cambridge University who has made a second career of using statistical methodology and intelligent experiment design to investigate things normally termed "paranormal" and is generally viewed as public enemy #1 by the CSICOP crowd and other such "science vigilantes". If nothing else, his methods are unassailable and his credentials are significantly better than theirs are. Sheldrake has pretty much provided valid statistical evidence that certain things which are usually termed paranormal are real.
How do paranormal capabilities evolve?
Then again there is the question of human origins. I have two basic reasons for despising PBS, one being the habit of handing their donor roles over to the DNC (which is why some refer to them as WDNC), and the other is the BS yuppie science programs they put on.
Virtually all such programs show a group of homo erectuses (homno erecti?) or some such primitive hominid deciding that it was time to come down from the trees and live on the African savannas and walk entirely on their rear legs and stop swinging from trees, the general claim being that such were the humble beginnings of humanity.
Now, what's wrong with that? I'll telll you what's wrong with that: all monkeys, all apes, and all humans are basically too slow and too noisy to live on the savannas. The most basic difference between human infants and the young of every other prey animal, and we would definitely have been a prey animal at such a point, is that the baby deer and what not know how to keep quiet.
What's going to happen the first time some human infant starts screaming his head off out on the African savannas with packs of 500-lb predators running around all over the place? Can you say "Dinner Bell"?
A much more viable version of a plausible proto-history for the human race has been proposed by a lady by the name of Elaine Morgan:
Morgan accepts an evolutionary model on general principles but does not go into any sort of a defense of evolution or evolutionism, and one does not need to be an evolutionist to grasp that she is almost certainly correct in thinking that humans originally lived in water. As she notes, we seem to share about a hundred traits with nothing in the world other than the aquatic mammals.