I have heard this evolution versus adaption/assimilation/conformation argument before, from a very religious person. Their idea is that evolution may be happening on a small and limited scale, but no further than that. They don't want to think about the more long-term and general implications of the theory. That is - if small adaptations can occur over a few years, what might happen over millions of years?

Assuming the earth is only 6,000 years old there isn't enough time for animals to evolve. All that can be seen are some minor "adaptations".

Religion apart, only a fundamentalistic person would say that the earth is only 6,000 years old.

The problem is not earth, but animals. The real problem is that 'millions of years' period. Anybody can make up a nice theory involving 'millions of years'. But how do you prove it? You can't. That's the real question and real problem with the evolution theory. It's only a theory which nobody can prove. (But a time machine would certainly help :)

What problem do you have with 'millions of years'?

Forget about proof. Just consider this: Imagine small changes, occurring continuously over millions of years. Would they still be 'small' changes after a while? Of course not. They would be small_changes * millions_of_years = big_changes

Or do you disagree that millions of years passed?

I don't have personally any problem with 'millions of years', and I don't say that the evolution theory is wrong, but for me it simply stays a nice theory, which can't be proven, and which isn't able to explain everything.

I do believe that the universe is millions of millions of years old, but I also believe that the humans arrived last (much later than any animal). And that humans have many attributes which can't be explained by an evolution theory.

Please offer me something more intelligent, I simply refute to think that some monkey thought by himself: "And now let's develop/incubate/whatever self consciousness, to be finally real humans!". Sorry, but that's too stupid.

Evolution is an observed fact and even religious leaders 150 years ago did not argue this. Natural Selection is a theory which explains, without reference to any supernatural agent, how evolution might have happened. Darwin didn't posit evolution as it wasn't a subject that was very exciting. It happened, everyone agrees.

Natural Selection, on the other hand, is more than just a hypothesis (you're using the word "theory" incorrectly). It (with refinements) is one of the most widely established explanations for all of the observed phenomena of lineages, species differences. It also made a number of testable predictions that have since been borne out (it predicted DNA, among other things). More recently, natural selection has led to the development of new sciences, like evolutionary biology, evolutionary psychology, evolutionary linguistics, etc. which are taking our understanding of biology and behavior further than ever.

Evolution is a fact. Natural Selection is a theory (and not a hypothesis). No scientists are "moving away" from natural selection. Anyone who told you that is uninformed or lying.

> Evolution is an observed fact [...]

Has it been 'observed' for a few years or for millions of years ;)

Again, it can't be observed for a period that would be sufficiently long to really prove for evidence.

Hence it's still a theory, sorry.

(Most 'scientists' need to learn philosophy, especially the greek one. It would help very much to understand logic, and to understand terms like 'theory'.)