I never believed in evolution as I thought it didn't make sense and that what was proposed was simply impossible. How could an environment alter an organism's DNA? How could bacteria resist antibiotics if they can't "think"? After taking a college biology course, it turns out my suspicions were correct. I learned that biologist have a different idea of evolution than the lay person that claims to know what evolution is. Here are some excerpts from the textbook we used for this class:
"Because most species have become more complex over life’s long evolutionary history, many people erroneously believe that natural selection leads to ever more “perfect” organisms or that evolution works toward some long-term goal. Explanations that use the words need or in order to typically reflect this mis- conception. For example, a person might say, “The beaks in figure 11.8 grew because the finches needed to eat the large, tough seeds” or “The beaks grew in order to give the finches the ability to eat the largest seeds.”
Both explanations are incorrect because evolution does not have a goal. How could it? No known mechanism allows the environment to tell DNA how to mutate and generate the alleles needed to confront future conditions. Nor does natural selection strive for perfection; if it did, the vast majority of species in life’s history would still exist. Instead, most are extinct."
As you can see biologist do not believe organisms evolve to adapt to their environment. That is simply impossible. I've heard people on this site make that argument many times, it's not true. Another example:
A change in an organism’s DNA sequence introduces a new allele to a population. The new variant may be harmful, neutral, or beneficial, depending on how the mutation affects the sequence of the encoded protein.
Mutations are the raw material for evolution because genes contribute to phenotypes, and natural selection acts on phenotypes. For example, random mutations in bacterial DNA may change the shapes of key proteins in the cell’s ribosomes or cell wall. Exposure to antibiotics selects for some of the new phenotypes if they happen to make the cell resistant to the drug. In that case, the mutations will pass to the next generation.
A common misconception is that a mutation produces a novel adaptation precisely when a population “needs” it to confront a new environmental challenge. For example, many people mistakenly believe that antibiotics create resistance; that is, that resistance arises in bacteria in response to expo- sure to the drugs.
In reality, genes do not “know” when to mutate; the chance that a mutation will occur is independent of whether a new phenotype would benefit the organism. The only way an- tibiotic resistance arises is if some bacteria happen to have a mutation that confers antibiotic resistance before exposure to the drug. The drug creates a situation in which these variants can flourish. That trait will then become more common within the population by natural selection. If no bacteria start out resistant, the drug kills the entire population. "
Bacterial resistance to antibiotics is the most used example as proof of evolution. As we can see however, bacteria cannot become resistance to antibiotics. At it's core evolution is random genetic mutations. There is no adaptation to environments, survival of the fittest, or bacterial resistance. The "evolution" taught by biologist makes a lot more sense as oppose to the fairy tale "evolution" that many people on this site and celeberties such as Dawkins believe in.