How does evolution explain evolution deniers?

Denying evolution just makes people look foolish and ignorant.

I mean, even the Vatican couldn't deny the facts and evidence forever..

"...new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis."

— John Paul II, 1996

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTM

Thing is, they always give ground grudgingly.

And only after continued denial is no longer prudent,

or beneficial,

or profitable..

Separate infections The notion that shared ERV markers is based upon the assumption that the the mutations are completely random. This assumption has been demonstrated to be false by real world observations. It so happens there are several types of cancers (leukemia, uterine and a form of lymphoma) that are caused by Retroviruses. These retroviruses have an affinity for specific areas of the gene (are not random) and often leave ERV markers. A second observation is identical ERV markers found in Gorillas and Humans but not Chimps. Since the Gorilla diverged before chimps and humans this can only be explained by separate infections. Given out of many thousands of ERV makers only 6 were common in Chimps and Humans, and 4 were common in Gorillas and Humans but not Chimps -which can only be accounted for as separate infections - and ERV mutations are not totally random, the evidence is far more supportive of the hypothesis that ERV markers are the result of separate infections rather than common descent. In the world of science as new evidence is found - hypotheses change to match those findings. In this case new evidence discredited the common descent hypothesis because that new evidence was more supportive of the separate infection hypothesis... Using outdated research does not help your case. If this argument is still maintained on your evolutionists apologetic sites then those sites are apparently just as deceptive as they accuse creationist sites as being for the same reason!

Evolution takes time, so Natural Selection hasn't weened them out yet. This actually proves Evolution. See. just like the deniers want to ask about transitional forms and then at the same time say, "Why haven't apes evolved into humans."

We will see as time goes on (if we're around in a million years or so) that at this stage of our existance certain animals/plants are "transitional' to what they evolve into next.

I'm tempted to Ctrl + F an electronic copy of that now.

If we follow the idea behind the movie "Idiocracy," those who reproduce the most will win out over those who don't, rendering survival of the fittest useless. Of course, that's all fiction.

It's all about adapting to fit the environment. These are people that went through their formative years during the Bush administration at which time it probably was socially advantageous to deny evolution and praise the Baby Jesus. I'm not sure that it's any better now, either.

Evolution simply comes down to this--whatever works, continues.

Denying evolution does not result in death. It does not result in the extinction of a species. Therefore, such idiocy will continue because it's not really an impediment to survival.

It depends on your definition of "fit". In evolution, it means, "able to survive and reproduce fertile offspring." It has nothing specifically to do with strength or dexterity, or even sanity, just survival. Creationism is apparently not a completely fatal condition. Perhaps we've been coddling them.

Well, survival of the fittest doesn't really take place in today's society.

It's only had 2000 years or so to work on them, give it time.

Buddhist quote: those that dont believe in evolution, dont evolve.