Anyone who's seen the evidence, "FOSSILS", "Genetics", and still accepts the belief in evolution, most likely has mythological motivations.
Evolutionists are the people who love to draw cute fictional ape characters, often found using photo-shop or some other artistic graphic producing program to show proof of their belief rather than Science in the their own irrefutable "FOSSIL RECORDS". Often correcting themselves during their lectures, changing their story to fit what ever the MYTH.
Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly "FINE GRADUATIONS", does NOT everywhere we see innumerable "TRANSITIONAL FORMS"?
Why, is NOT all nature in confusion INSTEAD of the species BEING, AS WE SEE THEM, WELL DEFINED?
But, as by this "THEORY" innumerable "TRANSITIONAL FORMS" must have existed, WHY DO WE NOT FIND THEM embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?..... Why then is NOT every Stratum full of such "INTERMEDIATE LINKS"?
GEOLOGY ASSUREDLY DOES NOT REVEAL ANY SUCH FINELY GRADUATED ORGANIC CHAIN; and this, perhaps is the MOST OBVIOUS and GRAVEST OBJECTION which CAN BE URGED AGAINST my "THEORY". (Charles Darwin, "The Origin of Species", Oxford University Press, New York, 1998, pp 140, 141, 227.)
What the Fossil Records due show: 146 million year old Lobsters - "JUST AS THEY ARE TODAY"; 208 million year old Shrimp - "JUST AS THEY ARE TODAY"; ; 242 million year old Lizard - "JUST AS THEY ARE TODAY"; 50 million year old Bat- "JUST AS THEY ARE TODAY"; 54 million year old Turtle - "JUST AS THEY ARE TODAY"; 110 million year old Scorpion - "JUST AS THEY ARE TODAY"; 20 million year old Tiger -"JUST AS THEY ARE TODAY"; 55 million year old Frog - "JUST AS THEY ARE TODAY"; 140 million year old Bird - "JUST AS THEY ARE TODAY"; 127 million year old Shrimp/Fish - "JUST AS THEY ARE TODAY"! The list continues on and on. Just as evolutionists are NOT nor will they use scientific facts, they will not talk about the FACTS they have found, "THAT THEY ARE INCORRECT in their THEORIES"; that "evolution is no more than a Fairy Tale just as their "Stork Theory"!!! "The Big Bang"? What a joke, REAL Science will show that there can NOT be sound in space - ergo no "Big Bang". However, REAL Science will prove that 'LET THERE BE LIGHT" is possible and a FACT light does exist in a vacuum!
Some (especially miseducated critics) refer to macro and microevolution. There is no such thing. Evolution is evolution. Fruit flys, rats, frogs, etc., have all been observed undergoing character change in laboritories, resulting in the inability to mate with other members of the base species (the control), thus forming a new species. Several examples of so-called macroevolution (the change at a genus level) have been observed by biologists in the rain forest. Furthermore, good fossil evidence shows transition between genera, and even higher taxanomic orders (incorrectly called Kingdom, Phylum, etc. - current work in phylogentic taxonomy does away with Linnean ranks). Representatives of higher order change in the fossil record includes change with fish, fish to amphibians, with amphibians, within reptiles, "reptiles" to dinosaurs, within dinosaurs, dinosaurs to "birds", within "birds", "reptiles" to mammals, within mammals, and other mammals to humans. I am not mentioning invertebrates here, as I do not deal with them in my line of work. See current molecular and physical phylogenetic phylogenies in Nature, Science, Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, etc., all of which are peer reviewed, something most parties who oppose evolution will not do (publish in peer-reviewed journals).
Evolution has nothing to do with The Big Bang - that is astronomy, not biology.
The synthysis and subsequent radiation and adaptation of life is a wonderful and beautiful thing, and far more complex than the, "We don't look like fish, so can't have evolved," argument presented by many whom view evolution/natural selection as the work of the devil.
2. The theory that species give rise to other species. This process of speciation can be accomplished in a number of ways, all of which must result in two (or more) populations becoming genetically isolated. This can be accomplished physically (allopatry and peripatry) or through division of patch types or through behavioral mechanisms (sympatry). This has been observed at low taxonomic levels. For instance, wheat is a modern species resulting from 2 instances of non-disjunction and one hybridization event that all occurred within the last 5000 years. The original plant has been identified from seeds from tombs in Egypt.
The creation of new higher level taxa is often referred to as macroevolution by non-scientists, but this usage is incorrect. The only difference between the origins of higher taxa and species is time. Today's species will eventually give rise to genera as they continue to diverge from their sister-taxa and continue to speciate themselves. All higher taxa were once just a species. Macroevolution properly refers to selection that operates above the species level, such as the selective pressure across the K-T boundary on gastropods which favored genera (but not species) with wide geographic ranges.
I'll note that theory is the most certain science ever is. In this case, it means that over the last century and a half, plus the observations from before the theory's proposal, no evidence has been found that contradicts the theory of evolution. By the same token, gravity is a theory, and thermodynamics is a theory. 'Law' is just scientific shorthand for a theory that no one thinks will ever be disproved, and may soon be applied to evolution.
2. The fossil sequence of horses is an excellent example of evolution
2. In everyday speech: A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.
2. It is interesting to note the evolution in computers over the years.